Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members:

 

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure from Councillor David Davies of Whittlesey Town Council.

 

Councillor Davies stated that as the Ward Councillor for Lattersey on Whittlesey Town Council he objects strongly to the proposed development as it currently stands. He questioned whether the issue concerning the water drainage from the site into the lake to the east of the development has been properly investigated as it is understanding that the owners of that land will refuse permission for that to happen and, therefore, the drainage strategy needs to be revisited.

 

Councillor Davies stated that the proposed foot path link into Diana Close/ Charles Road has raised many objections to date, there has been over one hundred from residents and it is still a major concern for them in this part of the ward. He added that most are elderly and are concerned about this foot path if it goes ahead, what controls will be put in place to stop it being used as a rat run for motorcycles and bikes and the possibility of anti-social behavior.

 

Councillor Davies stated that the original Taylor Wimpey plans did remove the footpath following a consultation with the residents, and he added that this is the only consultation that Taylor Wimpey have ever carried out. He added that this proposed footpath only goes to the perimeter of their site and to connect this footpath to Diana Close or Charles Road a new planning submission will need to be submitted and he questioned as to what will happen when someone falls and is injured due to the fact that the ground is uneven?

 

Councillor Davies reiterated the concerns from the residents regarding the footpath which needs to be revisited due to the number of resident objections and concerns.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Andrew Stimson, an objector to the application.

 

Mr Stimson stated that he is speaking on behalf of all residents who have objected to the footpath link, including himself.  He made the point that there are many elderly and vulnerable residents in the area around Diana Close, who have lived here for many years, and are very worried and anxious about a footpath link and all the additional anti-social issues it will bring.  He expressed the view that the area is already known for drug dealing and this has been witnessed and reported to the Police on numerous occasions over the past couple of years.

 

Mr Stimson stated that in June 2015 a public meeting was advertised and promoted at the Manor Leisure Centre in Whittlesey, to invite the views of the residents to the initial plans and design of the nursery development, with there even being a book for residents to record their comments and almost all residents who attended objected to the proposed footpath link which was shown on the initial drawings. He stated that to their credit, Taylor Wimpey removed this link and created a revised document called “Design and Access Statement” and this document is attached to the 2016 planning application, with residents being generally happy with the proposal, and they only had few other issues with the development taking place.

 

Mr Stimson stated that all subsequent planning updates, starting again in 2020, then showed the footpath link had been re-instated and this was during last year's lockdown when residents were shielding and no-one was aware of this change, as only 12 houses bordering the site were actually informed that planning was proceeding after a lull of 5 years. He added that a flyer was created and sent to all residents east of Bellmans Road inviting them to make any comments and this this has led to well over 100 objections on this point alone.

 

Mr Stimson expressed the view that this issue has made the residents very concerned, many who moved here years ago for a quiet life in their retirement and he questioned whether anyone from Fenland District Council or Taylor Wimpey has taken time to speak to them?  He stated that there is very limited natural surveillance from the new development according to the latest housing layout, no-one is looking out their window all day and night to keep an eye on the open spaces and there is none from the existing estates along with limited street lighting shown around the new public open spaces. He expressed the view that this will only make a link option a magnet for anti-social behaviour and a risk to public safety.

 

Mr Stimson added that if a link was created, then the easy access to the Nature Reserve would also attract more anti-social behaviour and drug dealing as there is no surveillance at all.  He added that school children are more likely to go through the Nature Reserve to New Road School, simply because it will be quicker than Diana Close, Charles Road and Bellmans Road route. He stated that recently an incident occurred where a dog-walker was almost mugged in the Nature Reserve and he asked how would this safety issue be resolved?

 

Mr Stimson questioned as to what would happen if the issues highlighted by residents, over creating a link, are correct and the situation worsens?  He stated that the Taylor Wimpey document presented at this meeting now states a 2m wide footway come cycleway which is different to the plans and not in the application. He added that this will also allow access to motorbikes, etc and create a rat-run to exit the development in a hurry.

 

Members asked Mr Stimson the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton referred to the anti-social behavior that Mr Stimson had referred to in Diana Close and stated that as the road is currently a direct end, it is an opportune location for anti-social behaviour to take place, however, if the road is made a through way it will get used more which will alleviate some of the current issues. Mr Stimson stated that he appreciates the point raised, but it is a currently a very quiet area and there is one house at the very far end of Charles Road, who have noticed at strange times of days there has been unusual behavior and a result drug paraphernalia has been recovered. He added that the residents are aware of the local people who use the wooded area to dog walk and if the area is opened it will allow for a significant increase in the usage of that area. Mr Stimson added that there is no surveillance in that area or the nature reserve and the fear of the residents is the increase in anti-social behaviour.

·         Councillor Connor stated that with regard to the footpath, he has spoken to Phil Hughes, the Council’s Parks and Green Spaces Manager, who has agreed that the proposed footpath to be constructed by the Council will be in consultation with the Police and a representative from local residents should the proposal be approved. Councillor Connor added that a scheme will be put in place which stops all forms of motorized travel, but will encourage walking and cycling and there may be an amount of money available for CCTV installation to minimize anti-social behaviour and he would hope that this will go some way to alleviate some of the concerns raised by the local residents. Mr Stimson stated that he is sure this will help to reassure people going forward.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that there is always the risk of anti-social behaviour when there are dead end roads and he is aware that the area is very quiet and was so when he visited. He expressed the view that if the road is opened up it would provide further surveillance and would allow the local children in the area to walk to school using the southern entrance rather than having to walk around the main road and back through Bellmans Road. He asked that if enough mitigation is put in place would the residents support the footpath? Mr Stimson stated that most of the anti-social behaviour is taking place during the evenings. Councillor Cornwell asked whether all the instances are reported to the Police and recorded? Mr Stimson confirmed that they are reported, and crime numbers have been obtained.

·         Councillor Cornwell asked for clarification as to whether the consultation with the Police has identified the instances which have been reported. Councillor Connor stated that no such detail has been received from the Police for consideration by the committee and he added that he had asked for a representative from the Constabulary to attend the meeting, but they were unable to. Councillor Connor reiterated that if there is CCTV installed, along with adequate lighting, following a consultation with residents, it will only improve the area from the current situation described by Mr Stimpson.

·         Councillor Marks asked Mr Stimpson to clarify that the dog walkers are already walking over the field to the nature reserve? Mr Stimson stated that there are a group of dog walkers who use the open space on a daily basis.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that he is aware that when he carries out his regular litter picks, he finds drug paraphernalia on a regular basis and it is not just found in one location. He added that he is aware that due to the pandemic, the Government are encouraging people to walk and cycle to exercise and this is something that along with Phil Hughes, he will continue to encourage in parks and open spaces. Mr Stimson stated that the open area has never been opened up and based on the recent instances of anti-social behaviour, the residents have pride in the local area and are concerned that the area will become a rat run and there is a very strong feeling of discontent among the local residents concerning the link footpath, which will change the area in their view.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Forster, an objector to the application

 

Mr Forster explained that he has further documentation that he will be sending into the Planning Department for them to hold on file and whilst he does not object to the development, he does oppose the drainage strategy due to the fact that Taylor Wimpey have failed to consult with Guildenburgh Water, Middle Level Commissioners and other consultees on the overland options that are available. He added that since the 1970’s the surface water from Bellmans has been drained by underground pipe across the former nursery site into the only available drain which flows north to south from the former nursery site to the former London Bridge Site, which is now Guildenburgh Water, bypassing the main lake.

 

Mr Forster stated that the historical existence of this original drain is confirmed by several Middle Level Commissioners maps and that without any legal agreement with Guildenburgh Water, the owner of the former nursery site excavated a west to east ditch which discharged irrigation run off from their greenfield site into the Guildenburgh main lake, which, in his view, is in breach of the Land Drainage Act 1991 and the ditch is not a legally agreed watercourse.  He expressed the opinion that the nursery also constructed an illegal irrigation lagoon on the site without any planning permission from the Council and without the approval of the Middle Level Commissioners, which also breached the Land Drainage Act.

 

Mr Forster stated that Taylor Wimpey proposed to block the existing natural drainage outlet to the south, so the surface water from two housing estates can be unnaturally forced to drain into the Guildenburgh main lake, by the west to east ditch which was constructed. He added that he has never been consulted by Taylor Wimpey for them to gain permission to discharge into his lake and he has made numerous attempts to suggest to them the overland route for drainage, but these suggestions have been ignored.

 

Mr Forster stated that at a meeting with Middle Level Commissioners in 2002 a representative from the Internal Drainage Board confirmed that the natural drainage route is to the north and this was then contradicted in a letter in 1997 which stated that the surface drainage water from Bellmans flowed from north to south. He expressed the view that conflicting information from various bodies has led to the Council and Middle Level Commissioners to believe that the natural flow is from south to north.

 

Mr Forster stated that in 1998 the lagoon failed to cope with flood water, resulting in the flooding of Guildenburgh House, and a second flood was also experienced on 24 December 2020. He expressed the view that the Land Drainage Act 1991 requires riparian owners to pass on the flow of water in its natural state without any interference to quantity or quality, and without obstruction, pollution or diversion which would affect the rights of others, with the previous owners of the nursery site having all been in breach of the Land Drainage Act and the Taylor Wimpey drainage strategy, in his view, breaches the Act in that it proposes to block off the natural drainage route and divert the flow in the Guildenburgh Water Lake, effecting the rights of the owners and users, adding that an independent water analysis of the Guildenburgh Lake has determined that the water is 500 times purer than the Government statistics for tap water and at least 100% purer than bottled water.

 

Mr Forster stated that the lake is an area of natural beauty and it does not deserve to be exposed to the risk of contamination and pollution from surface water drainage. He expressed the view that the technical content of the drainage strategy is flawed as the SUDS scheme only services the southern part of the development and surface water from the northern part would be discharged into the Guildenburgh lake untreated. He asked that if members are considering approval of the application, that the application be deferred until all parties have met for further discussions.

 

Members asked Mr Forster the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked whether Mr Forster had raised his concerns with the previous owners concerning the discharge and was any legal action taken? Mr Forster stated that legal action could not be taken as his insurers were the same as the previous owners. He added that when his house was flooded, he could claim damages, but he was advised that no legal action could be taken. Councillor Marks asked whether that information relates to the early 1990’s and Mr Forster stated that it did. Councillor Marks asked for clarification as to when the property flooded, and Mr Forster confirmed it was 1998.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matt Collerson and Phil Brown, the Agent and Drainage Consultant for the application.

 

Matt Collerson stated that he is a Chartered Town Planner and Director of CC Town Planning and is speaking on behalf of Taylor Wimpey East Midlands who is the developer of the site.  He stated that also speaking on behalf of Taylor Wimpey will be Phil Brown of JPP who will explain the drainage situation.

 

Mr Collerson stated he would like to highlight a few key points which he would like members to take into consideration in determining the application. He stated that he would like to highlight that this site was granted outline planning permission for up to 169 dwellings in 2019, subject to the approval of 4 reserved matters – appearance, landscaping, layout and scale - and the application relates solely to those reserved matters. 

 

Mr Collerson stated that the site is allocated as a strategic housing site within the Fenland Local Plan and within the Council’s latest monitoring report (Nov 2020) all dwellings are forecast to come forward within the next 5 years, as such this site is a key strategic site for the Council to maintain a 5 year housing land supply.  He made the point that the number of dwellings has been reduced from the maximum permitted under the outline (169) to 158 dwellings comprising of 2, 3- and 4-bedroom homes and it was agreed at outline stage that there is no affordable housing requirement on this site.

 

Mr Collerson stated that the outline planning permission also secured Section 106 contributions towards education, as well as to the Wildlife Trust to provide improvements to the local Nature Reserve.  He explained that concerns relating to matters such as highway impact, traffic congestion, lack of affordable housing and impact on local services have been raised by local residents and stated that these are all matters that were assessed as part of the outline planning permission.

 

Mr Collerson expressed the opinion that he has worked closely with officers over several months, making several revisions to the scheme to provide a layout that officers support and respond to consultees and local concerns. He added that the proposed dwellings are of a high quality design with a varied materials palette and together with the careful use of landscaping and boundary treatment, along with significant areas of open space and retained landscaping, will create a high quality living environment for future residents.

 

Mr Collerson stated that the scheme has been amended to provide a footway link from the site to the Charles Road area to the west, at the request of officer’s to provide better connectivity and encouraging more sustainable transport options, with the applicant also agreeing to the payment of a financial contribution towards enhancing the footway link on the Council’s land which will be secured through the Section 106 agreement. He stated that the concerns relating to surface water drainage will be outlined in more detail by Mr Brown and added that both the IDB and LLFA are satisfied with the proposed drainage strategy, with the drainage proposals having been prepared by an experienced and highly qualified engineer, independently assessed by Mr Brown as a drainage expert, independently assessed from a legal perspective as set out in the advice provided to officers and again have been accepted by the IDB and LLFA. 

 

Mr Collerson stated that as set out in the committee report, the applicant has sought to address the owner of Gildenburgh Lakes concerns by proposing a scheme to monitor the quality of water at outfall source and this is considered by officers to be a pragmatic and effective way of monitoring water quality within the Lake. He stated that the scheme includes policy compliant levels of open space, along with the provision of play equipment and bird boxes, with the reserved matters submission having been accompanied by detailed landscaping plans and these have all been approved by the County Ecologist, Wildlife Trust, and the Council’s Arboricultural Officer.

 

Mr Collerson stated that he understands the local concerns to this development, however, these have either been considered at outline stage or addressed through this submission as recognised by the fact that there are no technical objections and through the officer’s recommendation.

Mr Brown stated that he has a degree, with Honours, in Civil Engineering and is a Chartered Engineer and a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineering and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation.  He stated that his brief from Taylor Wimpey was to provide an independent opinion of the development with respect to storm water drainage and he added that it is his understanding that the consultees to the planning application, that include the IDB and Lead Local Flood Authority, do not object to the development or to the storm water strategy currently proposed and that the development complies with their requirements.

 

Mr Brown stated that he undertook a site visit on the 15 March with Taylor Wimpey and by reviewing the historic maps of the site, where the development site is shown as a field, and to the east the Gildenburgh Brickworks site has grown significantly to include rail links to the south, with the south eastern boundary of the site showing the current Taylor Wimpey site with the ditches that are there today showing a link between the quarry and a reservoir to the south east. He stated that the Taylor Wimpey site is currently undeveloped and no buildings or hardstanding of the former nursery remain and the drainage features to the south east corner are still in place and comprise the boundary ditches mentioned earlier and lagoon, which appear to be working as there is not flooding and draining occurring both to the south and to the east. 

 

Mr Brown stated that, whilst the site visit was undertaken on a dry day, there was observed a small flow of water from the lagoon going south and east and having examined the topographical survey that was undertaken by MK Surveys in December 2018 it is clear that the outfall from the lagoon is both to the east and to the south, with ditch bed levels falling away from the lagoon, evidenced by a water flow observed on site. He added that these flows are not impeded to both Gildenburgh Water and to the pond to the south and the topographical survey does not extend to Gildenburgh Water or to this pond to the south.

 

Mr Brown expressed the view that the Terry Stafford drawings show an existing storm water pipe from the housing development off Bellmans Grove, immediately to the east of the Taylor Wimpey development and whilst the catchment details are not known, it is assumed to be the outfall from this housing development, with the outfall to the ditch to the north of the Lagoon at an invert level of 3.49m, lower than the recorded lagoon water level of 3.66m and lower than the bed level of the ditch between this outfall and the lagoon of 3.54m.  He stated that the Taylor Wimpey design, produced by Terry Stafford, for Taylor Wimpey, shows the storm water for the development being collected from hardstanding areas and draining by gravity to the south of the site, to a SUDs Basin, with the SUDS basin predominantly a dry pond that has a flow restrictor, or flow control chamber, at the outlet. 

 

Mr Brown expressed the opinion that the SUDS basin also provides a degree of treatment to improve the quality of the water leaving the development, which is achieved by allowing the water to flow across vegetated areas and into a sediment forebay just before final discharge offsite, with the sediment forebay giving the opportunity for suspended solids to drop out of the water during low flow conditions and with the right type of planting offering a final polishing of the water. He explained that the design further incorporates a significant amount of permeable block paving to all private drives and parking areas, which allows water to be collected and treated at source and properly constructed permeable paving can remove pollutants at source both by filtration and anaerobically and it also aids in the management of storm water flows as well, with all these drainage features designed to the normal standards expected.

 

Mr Brown expressed the view that following the historic drainage routes from 1926 it is clear that a drain linked the application site to what is now Gildenburgh Water and it is likely that the drain constructed was in response to the development of the brickworks to manage flows from what is now the Taylor Wimpey site.  He believes the outfall points for the proposed Taylor Wimpey development outfall to the same place as the previous nursery development, into the existing lagoon, and this in turn outfalls to the existing drains, with the proposed outfall level higher than the existing pond level, the Taylor Wimpey development does not change in anyway where the water flows at present or is likely since 1926.

 

Mr Brown expressed the view that the pond to the south appears to only have been in existence between 1958 and 1978 and looks to have been fed from the existing drain along the southern boundary and this pond was, therefore, never part of the original drainage system for the application site. He added that this pond has currently no outfall other than some infiltration at water level and, in his opinion, that as this is a later feature it cannot be relied upon as a viable outfall to replace the outfall to Gildenburgh Water.

 

Mr Brown expressed the view that the drainage design for the proposed development essentially matches the previous situation in that the existing lagoon receives the collected surface water and outfalls both to the south, to the pond, to the east and to Gildenburgh Water to the east. He stated that given the flow control measures that will be constructed, the Taylor Wimpey development will offer a degree of betterment with respect to storm water flow rates and best match green field run off rates and these will be less than the uncontrolled flow rates from the previous development.

 

Mr Brown expressed the opinion that the proposed Taylor Wimpey development offers well known and widely implemented techniques to improve water quality, certainly higher than the adjacent housing development to the east, and he would recommend to Taylor Wimpey that the planting in the SUDS basin and the sediment forebay are given careful design consideration to use planting that can offer the best enhancement to water quality.

 

Members asked Mr Collerson and Mr Brown the following questions.

 

·         Councillor Cornwell asked Mr Collerson to clarify whether Fenland Officers have already agreed a proposal for the drainage on the site? Mr Collerson clarified that what he stated was that the application has been recommended for approval and the agreement is on that basis, but the final decision is for members to take.

·         Councillor Meekins stated that he finds it strange that a plan has been submitted which shows surface water being drained into somebody else’s property. He questioned whether this is a usual occurrence when developing sites? Mr Brown stated that where an established drainage outfall is in place, it already has drainage rights attached to it and, therefore, it is allowed if the connection already exists.

·         Councillor Sutton asked Mr Brown to clarify what the ongoing maintenance regime will be for the SUDS area? Mr Brown stated that he would expect Taylor Wimpey to employ a maintenance company to look after the SUDS Basin in perpetuity including the grassed and planting areas. He added that the effectiveness of the SUDS basins relies on good maintenance.

·         Councillor Marks asked Mr Brown whether he was aware of any paperwork or contract in existence with regards to the historic discharge of water in Guildenburgh? Mr Brown stated that there is a lot of documentation between the previous owners of the development and the Internal Drainage Board where rights have been established to allow those connections, but he is not aware of any formal agreement or contract in writing.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that Guildenburgh Water is a business, is run as a diving lake and she can appreciate the concerns of Mr Forster and she questioned what the difference in cost would be if an alternative solution was looked at? Mr Brown stated he did not know that information as that exercise had not been undertaken or costed by him. He added that there is an existing drainage network in place that works, the Taylor Wimpey development does not alter that network, it just connects to it and it still permits a flow to the east and south of Guildenburgh lake and the routes will not be blocked off, but will remain exactly the same as what is currently in place and what currently operates. He feels that the pollution control measures that will be put in place offer a higher degree of pollution control than what is currently in place.

·         Councillor Marks asked for clarity that no changes will be made including extra piping or larger pipes? Mr Brown stated that the pipe that links from the SUD station to the existing lagoon is set at a higher level than the current water level and there is no intention to drop the water level at all, with the only changes being to put some crossings in, but there are no other fundamental changes.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that the amount of rainfall on that particular block of land will make no difference whether it is developed or not and the drainage through the soil, into any drainage, through the ditches, through into Guildenburgh Water will remain the same. He added that mitigation is in place in terms of the SUDs to give a mimicking of the natural drainage. Mr Brown stated that is correct.

 

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Murphy asked officers to confirm that a management company will be in place to look after the three open space play areas and asked whether the roadways will be wide enough to allow the refuse freighters access to service the properties? Gavin Taylor stated that the developer has been advised that they will need to secure a management company to maintain the open space. He added that the private roads are narrow, and, therefore, a bin collection point will be identified to allow our refuse team to access and manoeuvre and these arrangements have been agreed with the Council’s Refuse and Recycling Manager. Councillor Murphy questioned why the collection points have not been identified on the map provided to members? Gavin Taylor stated the site development plan details the bin collection points at key areas adjacent to the adopted highway and is shown as grouped areas, which are pepper potted around the site.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked the Highways Officer to clarify that if the application is approved are the roads going to be adopted and is there going to be a bond in place to ensure that this does happen? Alex Woolnough from the Highway Authority stated that he is currently in discussions with Taylor Wimpey regarding a Section 38 Agreement and added that they are keen for this to be entered into, which will include a bond to be in place.

·         Councillor Marks asked whether the footpath could be constructed prior to commencement of the development, should approval be given, so it is not a rough access path on entry? Gavin Taylor stated that on the proposed condition 6 in the officer’s report, it refers to the trigger for delivery of the footpath by Taylor Wimpey and sets out that it needs to be then secured until such time that the Council is ready to deliver their elements. He added that the footpath will not be useable until the Council have delivered their aspects of the development and the developer is proposing that they commence works at the north of the site and work their way down and, therefore, in the interim period would need to access services via the north. Councillor Marks asked whether the trigger period is determined by the number of houses built and Gavin Taylor stated that Condition 8 sets a trigger of 100 dwellings.

·         Nick Harding stated that the grant of planning permission does not authorise a developer to undertake works that they are not allowed to do for other reasons. He added that the approval of a drainage scheme does not entitle a person to discharge their water into another person’s land and into their facilities and it is not part of the planning application process to resolve issues of land ownership and drainage rights. Nick Harding added that with regard to the earlier comments made concerning the footpath link and concerns regarding anti-social behaviour and crime and disorder statistics, the officer’s report states that the Police consultee was fully aware of the residents representations and they would have considered whether the development proposal would exacerbate crime and disorder in the area as a consequence of having the footpath link and the officer has concluded that the link would not be detrimental.

 

Members asked questions, made comments, and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he noted from the update report the occurrences  of crime and anti-social behaviour from the 1 January 2019 in Bellman Road, Diana Close and Charles Road, and whilst he appreciates the concerns of the local residents, it appears that there is not the level of anti-social behaviour taking place that the residents have mentioned and it could be that there is a fear of crime, rather than crime taking place, with it being likely that the instances of crime are not being reported to the Police. Councillor Sutton stated that the application is a prime example of good planning and officers have worked exceptionally hard with the agent and should be congratulated. He stated that whilst he appreciates the concerns of residents, he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the Council are working on a cycling, walking and mobility improvement strategy and within the strategy it will provide a high level intervention needed to create a consistent and connected network of cycling and walking routes in Fenland towns, which will enable residents to be able to link with places of education and employment. She added that this planning proposal will accord with the strategy and assist with issues of congestion on the local roads and make the roads safer. Councillor Mrs French added that the strategy encourages local people to commute to school, work, and college on foot or on bicycle, which is something that people are now wishing to embrace following the pandemic. She stated that she fully supports the application and is content with the comments made by the Highways Officer and added that the only concern she has is with regard to surface water discharge, which she hopes can be addressed. Councillor Mrs French stated that she appreciates the comments raised by Mr Stimson but agrees that the introduction of lighting will go some way to alleviate residents concerns.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the drainage issues will need to be resolved prior to commencement of works. Whilst he appreciates the concerns of the residents, he feels that the residents may have a fear of instances of crime and by increasing the number of residents living in the locality, it will remove the tucked away feeling that the road currently has. Councillor Benney stated that he will be fully supporting the application.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she wanted to congratulate the Planning Officers for the work and detail which has gone into the application. She added that the drainage issues are for others to resolve between them and she expressed the opinion that she can appreciate the concerns raised by the residents with regard to the footpath, however, the footpath will assist the children in the area for their route to school and added that steps are being taking to allay those concerns. Councillor Mrs Davis stated that CCTV could be considered by Taylor Wimpey going forward, but added that she will be fully supporting the application.

·         Gavin Taylor stated that the applicant has proposed a financial contribution and added that the Council’s transport have also indicated that there may be some alternative funding streams available and that work is ongoing.

 

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Mrs Davis and agreed that the application be APPROVED, as per the officer’s recommendation.

 

(All members declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Local Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on this item)

 

(Councillor Cornwell took no part in the debate of voting on this item, due to loss of internet connection, and he left the meeting at this point and for the remainder of the meeting)

 

(Councillors Mrs Mayor and Councillor Miscandlon declared an interest, by virtue of the fact that they are both members of the Planning Committee at Whittlesey Town Council and were present when this item was discussed, and, therefore, took no part in the discussion or voting on this item)