To consider and comment on the proposals contained within the Draft Masterplan for Arlesey Cross in light of a public consultation prior to its consideration by Executive for adoption as technical guidance for Development Management purposes.

The Chairman invited six speakers to address the Committee on this item.  In summary the speakers raised issues regarding the following:-

·         Support for the Masterplan from Arlesey Residents Association, who felt the Masterplan would enhance the town and encourage inward investment, subject to amendments.

·         The proposed relief road, which had been inappropriately designed.

·         The disproportionate and unsustainable level of development in relation to the size of Arlesey and the lack of certainty with regards housing numbers and density.

·         The interim transport assessment, which residents considered to be flawed.

·         The importance of environmental enhancements within the Masterplan.

·         The need to fully understand the cost of proposed infrastructure and whether it was viable before the Masterplan could be approved.

·         A petition that was currently circulating local residents and would arrive in due course, which demonstrated that people did not understand how they could influence the content of the Masterplan or how it would impact on Arlesey.

·         The need for more meaningful engagement with local residents particularly in relation to the Section 106 (S106) agreement.  There were concerns that consultation had not adhered to the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement and it was unclear how responses provided by local residents had informed the draft Masterplan.  During the consultation there had been insufficient copies of documentation available or use of social media, which had impacted on residents’ ability to respond.

In addition to the comments above the following suggested amendments to the Masterplan were proposed by members of the public:-

1.    The removal of paragraph 5.11 as regards the demolition of two of the properties at 133-139 High Street, which had been the subject of a previous appeal decision.

2.    Endorsement of the Masterplan should be delayed until such time as the issues raised by the public had been resolved.

3.    The need to highlight that critical infrastructure and traffic calming measures should be completed as soon as possible.

In addition the promoters of the Masterplan addressed the committee as members of the public.  The developer commented that the Masterplan built on the Council’s agreed planning policies and the Council’s Assets team continued to be engaged developing proposals.

In response to the issues raised by members of the public, Cllr Young commented on the importance of the Council agreeing a Masterplan in order to retain control over future development of an important site that had been allocated in the Local Development Framework (LDF).  S106 contributions were determined by a specified formula and local ward Members would influence this to ensure that contributions were appropriate.

The Head of Development Planning and Housing Strategy confirmed that the Planning Inspectorate had dismissed a previous appeal for an application for the demolition of two properties at 133-139 High Street.  He pointed out that the appeal proposal was for a primary access to serve five properties, not a secondary access as indicated in the Masterplan.  He agreed with the Inspector that as an access to serve five properties it was over engineered.  He referred to the appeal decision letter and the Inspector’s comments that the issue of access at this point in the High Street was a matter for the Masterplan.  An informed decision regarding S106 contributions could only be made once a planning application had been submitted but officers considered the proposals in the Masterplan to be viable.  It was also confirmed that traffic calming measures could be delivered up front as critical infrastructure and the Masterplan would be amended to that affect.

The Committee received a presentation from Ms S Farrier that outlined the key issues raised during the consultation and how the Masterplan had been amended as a result. 

In light of the issues raised by public speakers and the information presented to the Committee the following issues were discussed in detail:-

·         Some residents had engaged with the Council in the past but many had engaged too late in the process as the land had already been allocated in the LDF.  In response Cllr Young commented that residents generally did not engage in proposals for developments until a planning application had been submitted, even if significant consultation of the development had previously been undertaken locally.  Whilst the Council went out of its way to engage local Ward Members and residents, he would look again in future at whether even more could be done to attract engagement with residents earlier in the development process.

·         Further work was required in relation to the transport assessment, particularly in relation to ascertaining the level of public transport available in Arlesey and the ways in which residents could be encouraged to walk/cycle.  Additional housing developments would impact on accessibility and this needed to be taken into account in modelling traffic flows.  The Head of Development Planning and Housing Strategy commented that the interim transport assessment was sound.  In any event a full transport assessment would be required to be submitted alongside any planning application.

·         Concerns regarding access to and the integration of development on the land to the West of Arlesey.

·         The lack of safe walking routes to Etonbury school across the A507 and whether this could be required in the Masterplan.  In response Cllr Young stated that the Masterplan would be amended to require an additional crossing over or under the A507 provide convenient walking and cycling access to Etonbury School.

·         The need for further investment in publicly owned homes for rent.

·         Whether there were opportunities for more meaningful engagement with the public, particularly with vulnerable residents and the importance of taking into consideration the issues that had already been raised. 

·         The importance of suitable drainage solutions for the development, noting the flooding that had recently occurred at Arlesey Train Station.

·         Whether a maximum number of homes could be stated within the Masterplan.

·         The need to better understand the S106 elements of the Masterplan and what local benefits could be viably delivered by the development.  There was a need for more proactive engagement with residents in relation to S106.

·         Whether developers would consider the types of development that were considered appropriate by the Council.  In response Cllr Young commented on the critical importance of the Council’s Design Guide to advise developers on the necessary quality of development it would expect.  Although the design standards within the Guide could not be required they provided an appropriate indication of acceptable materials.

·         Whether the relief road could be constructed up-front as critical infrastructure.  The Head of Development Planning and Housing Strategy commented on the difficulty of the viability of the relief road if it was required to be provided up-front.  ‘Triggers’ had been included in other developments so that once a number of homes had been completed specified pieces of infrastructure were also required.  Any proposals to forward fund the infrastructure could not be considered until a planning application was received by the Council.  If necessary, other short-term access routes via the East of the site had been considered prior to the construction of the relief road.  The Assistant Director, Planning commented that the Council as landowner was in a position to influence the delivery of the relief road.

·         The possible impact on traffic in Arlesey and in the local network due to the cumulative impact of housing developments in neighbouring areas.

·         The need to consider public transport into and out of Arlesey and whether there were sufficient services in order to meet demand.

·         The need to clarify references in paragraph 5.11 to highlight that the Council was not advocating on-street parking on roads of three-metre width.

NOTED the concerns of the public and the Committee in relation to the interim transport assessment and the need for this to be addressed prior to a planning application being submitted.  The Committee also noted concerns regards the manner of consultation that the Council undertakes in relation to Masterplans generally and the manner in which responses are used to inform the Masterplan.

RECOMMENDED to Executive that the Arlesey Masterplan be adopted as Technical Guidance for Development Management purposes subject to the following amendments:-

1.    That local traffic calming measures be considered ‘essential’

2.    That an additional crossing to Etonbury School be provided over or under the A507

3.    That further clarification be provided in relation to the width of streets and parking measures detailed at paragraph 5.11

(adjourned at 1137 and reconvened at 1145hrs)