Natural England has warned Fenland District Council that a 104 page ecological survey on a 30 acre site earmarked by Rose Homes at Whittlesey for 249 homes is flawed. The site is on land north of 271 – 311 Eastrea Road.
Rose Homes submitted their proposals to Fenland Council a year ago and their Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) has just been submitted.
The report is required for land situated within a recognised European designated site, previously under the rules of the European Commission but post Brexit now overseen by local councils.
Rose Homes instructed a company to produce a report for the site which is described as being within the Impact Risk Zone (IRZ) of three European designated sites and therefore, has the potential to affect its interest features.
Conservation issues
The European sites concerned are the Nene Washes Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site and the Nene Washes Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
And around a quarter of the site falls within the ‘Goose and Swan Impact Risk Zone’ and is referenced in the Fenland District Council Draft Local Plan (August 2022).
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Their statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
And they said they are less than pleased that the HRA has not been produced by Fenland District Council itself.
“We note that the submitted Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) has not been produced by your authority, but by the applicant,” says Catherine Duerden of Natural England in a letter to the council.
FDC told – your responsibility
She told Tim Williams, Fenland Council’s interim senior development officer, that as “competent authority, it is your responsibility to produce the HRA and be accountable for its conclusions.
“To meet the requirements of regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), we advise you to check the submitted ‘Report to Inform a Habitats Regulations Assessment’ and decide if you, as the competent authority, agree with the methodology, reasoning, and conclusions provided.
“It is then your authority’s responsibility to produce a separate HRA report or decision notice, which can draw on the information provided by the applicant, and to be accountable for its reasoning and conclusions.”
She added: “Please note that you are required to consult Natural England on any appropriate assessment you may need to undertake.
“We advise that, as part of your HRA, the ‘in-combination assessment’ will need to be revised as the submitted report has not followed the appropriate procedure for this stage. “
Ms Duerden added: “Plans and projects cannot be dismissed because they have no Likely Significant Effects alone – it is precisely these projects that need to be taken into consideration in order to look for insignificant effects that could be of greater significance when added together.
Take heed of our advice
“Where there is a likelihood of significant effects in combination, or effects in-combination cannot be ruled out, the project should be taken forward to appropriate assessment as an in-combination project.”
She warns that “if your authority is minded to grant planning permission contrary to the advice in this letter, you are required under Section 28I (6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to notify Natural England of the permission, the terms on which it is proposed to grant it and how, if at all, your authority has taken account of Natural England’s advice.
“You must also allow a further period of 21 days before the operation can commence”.
Agents acting for Rose Homes told the council that “the development is not going to have a significant impact on the Nene Washes or the SSSIs identified as sensitive.
“The level of impact has been supported by the RSPB’s manager of the Nene Washes”.
FACT FILE
One of the many critics has been Fenland Council leader Chris Boden who represents the area as its county councillor and as a district councillor and town councillor.
His full letter is below:
I object to this application on five planning grounds:
The area involved is the final undeveloped site fronting the A605 in the Whittlesey area. It forms an important part of the separation of Eastrea village from the settlement of Whittlesey.
If this site is built on it will materially affect the ‘market town’ feel to Whittlesey as it is the final residual open undeveloped area along the A605 before the border (along Drybread Road) with the village of Eastrea.
The local desire to maintain as much as remains of the settlement gap between Whittlesey and Eastrea was the primary reason that the Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan did not approve this site for development.
Neighbourhood Plan
The Neighbourhood Plan has been through examination and was approved by the electors of Whittlesey in a referendum held within the last 12 months, so it is very much up to date.
Significant planning weight should be given to Local Neighbourhood Plans, and in this case the Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan clearly states that the site of this application should not be developed.
The A605 at the point opposite the new bus stop next to Aldi is not a suitable location for a road junction serving 200 new houses.
Since the opening of the Aldi store that section of the A605, which was always busy, has become quite dangerous, with many cars turning into or out of the Aldi store.
Adding a residential junction here serving 200 houses would be severely problematic, and it’s difficult to imagine how the majority of cars exiting the proposed development at peak hours would be able to exit the development and turn right towards Whittlesey, given the substantial and increasing traffic volumes on the A605 there.
Drybread Road is a problematic junction with the A605, on a bend and opposite the entrance to an HGV depot. Having the cars accessing and exiting 50 houses in the proposed development will make an already difficult junction far worse.
It is naive to suggest that residents of these properties would not use the whole of Drybread Road to deliver their children to Alderman Jacobs School (also on Drybread Road) or to pick them up from that school. Any resident seeking to travel north on the B1040 towards Peterborough Employment Area would also use the wholly inadequate single track Drybread Road.
Also, the draft local plan does not include this site as suitable for development.
Application Summary Application Number: F/YR23/0705/O Address: Land North Of 271 – 311 Eastrea Road Whittlesey Cambridgeshire Proposal: Erect up to 249 x dwellings (outline application with matters committed in respect of access) and the formation/works to 2 x accesses
