Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for submission of details required by condition 35 (Pedestrian and Cyclist NW Connectivity) of outline planning permission 20/01972/OUT.

The Planning Officer (Strategic Sites) updated his report by referring to:

i.                Revised report wording on the amendment sheet - Alteration to para 8.2 – The officer recommendation for outline planning permission (20/01972/OUT) originally proposed the inclusion of condition 35. This was later excluded in a pre-committee amendment to the recommendation, as evidence was submitted on efforts that had been made to improve pedestrian and cyclist connectivity. Following discussion, the Committee resolved to re-instate this condition. The intention of this was to ensure that sufficient efforts were taken by the applicants to secure a northern access. The outline planning permission was considered acceptable in planning terms without the northern pedestrian/cycle link, and no such link was indicated in the approved parameter plans. This site allocation policy in the Local Plan does not require provision of a northern access.

ii.               A revised recommendation in his presentation – the requirements of condition 35 have been met and the feasibility of northern pedestrian/cycle link has been explored. It is recommended condition 35 is discharged in full, allowing the development to proceed without provision of a northern pedestrian and cycle access. Therefore, the developer will not be required to provide, as part of the development, the northern pedestrian and cycle links explored in the submitted feasibility statement.

Ms Pryor (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Davies (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

i.                As Ward Councillor for Queen Edith’s, wished to make it clear that this was not a trivial piece of box-ticking. On the contrary, in seeking to discharge Condition 35, was acknowledging the failure of the planning system to deliver sustainable development at the site known as Netherhall Farm or GB1.

ii.               It was critical for the sustainability of GB1 that a northern active-travel route between the site and the rest of Queen Edith’s should be delivered. Without it, GB1 would be cut off from primary and secondary schools, and local amenities such as the pharmacy and GP surgeries. It would be less safe and considerably less convenient for residents living on GB1 to walk or cycle to access those amenities; and they will be more inclined to drive to reach them. This would put further pressure on an already over-loaded local road network, increase the development’s carbon footprint, and harm local air quality.

iii.             It also brought into question the compliance of GB1 with Policy 80 of the 2018 Local Plan.

iv.             There were three aspects requiring attention.

1.    Actions of the site promoter, CEG. The feasibility statement submitted by Lichfields in support of the discharge of Condition 35 says that CEG only became aware during the pre-application consultation phase that “there was some local support for the inclusion of a link on the northern edge of the site”. That was not true.

2.    Consideration of the application for outline planning approval. Spoke at the February 2021 Planning Committee when the application was considered alongside then Ward Councillor Colin McGerty and Matt Danish from CamCycle. All made representations that the northern active-travel access was required in order for development at GB1 to be considered compliant with Policy 80 of the 2018 Local Plan which is entitled 'Supporting sustainable access to development'.

a.                   The responsibility of the developer for achieving compliance was spelt out in paragraph 9.14 (page 233): "Developers will be required to fund high-quality paths, both along the identified routes, and any others that may be suitable for accessing the particular development."

b.                   That’s what the Policy required. However, the wording of Condition 35 only required the applicant to provide “details of the work undertaken to seek a link” and “to determine the feasibility of implementing such a link”, not the actual delivery of the link.

c.                   Councillors’ clear intent in requesting Condition 35 was that all best efforts should be made to achieve sustainable development, compliant with Local Plan Policy 80.  Asked the Councillors here today who also attended that meeting whether they understood then what is stated in the report from Officer Truett today, namely that “it is not considered reasonable to require an applicant to implement a path on land outside the applicant’s ownership”? Did Members understand how trivial it would be for the developer to frustrate the intent of Condition 35 as it was worded?

3.    Role and responsibilities of the landowner. The application for discharge of Condition 35 was in the name of GSTC Property Investment Limited. The Guys and St Thomas’ Charity claims that it manages its land and property to “help us achieve the greatest possible impact on health” and was a key contributor to the development of the THRIVES framework, a tool for integrating health and wellbeing into new developments created in 2020 in collaboration with built environment and health practitioners at the UCL Institute of Environmental Design and Engineering. The THRIVES framework seeks to raise awareness that “health impacts often occur far away from new development or many years after construction, requiring design teams to think of impact beyond the property boundaries”. Asked councillors to consider whether, despite the worthy rhetoric, the discharge of Condition 35 requested by GSTC will cause negative health impacts in the community for decades to come because the planning process had failed “to think beyond the property boundaries”.

v.              Suggested there were four scenarios regarding the sustainable development of GB1 and its compliance with Local Plan Policy 80:

1.    the northern access route was still deliverable, if CEG makes ‘best’ efforts. If this is the case, Condition 35 should not be discharged today;

2.    the northern access could have been delivered if Condition 35 had been more tightly worded;

3.    the northern access could have been delivered if the Local Plan policy re GB1 had been more tightly worded, for example ‘required’ not ‘investigated’;

4.    the northern access could never have been delivered because there is no planning means by which this requirement could be enforced on the developer.

vi.             Today’s application required the Committee to decide on the first of these points and in all likelihood Condition 35 would be discharged this afternoon, for the reasons laid out in Officer Truett’s report.

vii.           If this was the outcome, then it is also imperative that officers and members identify which of scenarios 2, 3 and 4 had caused them to arrive at this situation, and undertake to learn from that. Needed to acknowledge that, in this instance, the planning system has not worked to serve the interests of current residents of Queen Edith’s, or the future residents of GB1. GB1, without the northern access, was not compliant with Policy 80 of the Local Plan and did not believe it can honestly be described as sustainable.

Councillor Gawthrope Wood proposed and Councillor Thornburrow seconded a proposal to defer the application to (a) allow residents along the northern boundary of the site to be contacted about freeing up land for access; and (b) contacting the County Council to ask if surrounding land can be opened up allowing for site access thus enabling the possibility of a public path creation order being available for pursuit.

This proposal was carried unanimously.

The Committee:

The application was deferred.