Combined Authority Environment & Sustainable Communities Committee

In Huntingdon for today’s meeting of the Combined Authority’s Environment & Sustainable Communities Committee.

At the previous meeting I proposed that the Combined Authority should declare a climate emergency. Work on this is under way, aligning it to the authority’s work on the ‘locally determined contributions’ which we need to establish to help meet global climate change targets.

There’s a public question from Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Climate Action Coalition, asking in essence what the Combined Authority will be doing to speed up delivery of some of its key environmental targets.

There are questions and comments from the Mayor and councillors on the Director’s update, including on the future of eight ‘£100K homes’ at Fordham. I ask for clarity about the status of these homes as an acceptable form of affordable housing within the development. There’s a discussion about the new Centre for Green Technology being built at Peterborough, and the need to align the FE ‘cold spots’ (including Ely) with skills development opportunity and, as I point out, also transport access for young people.’There are questions and comments from the Mayor and councillors on the Director’s update, including on the future of eight ‘£100K homes’ at Fordham. I ask for clarity about the status of these homes as an acceptable form of affordable housing within the development. There’s a discussion about the new Centre for Green Technology being built at Peterborough, and the need to align the FE ‘cold spots’ (including Ely) with skills development opportunity and, as I point out, also transport access for young people.

The Mayor mentions the Wisbech incinerator, and I note that we are waiting for the outcome of the Environment Agency consultation on the permitting of the facility, and of Fenland District Council’s decision to obtain advice on whether there are grounds for judicial review.

There’s an update on the Combined Authority’s residual housing programme. The current total of units to be delivered is 1438; 827 of these have been completed and occupied, with 611 still to go. There were supposed to be 2000 in total, but the Government withdrew the remaining funding following concerns about the management of the programme under the previous Mayor.

Next there’s a presentation on Huntingdonshire District Council’s Biodiversity for All project, which is using £1.3M from the Combined Authority to ‘accelerate the delivery of measurable biodiversity net gain in Huntingdonshire’, and engage the community in doing so.

After a short break, we move on to the review of the Combined Authority’s Climate Action Plan, and there’s a discussion on inviting constituent councils to be the ‘accountable body’ for the delivery of some of the projects. The committee is also asked to agree funding to Natural Cambridgeshire and Fenland SOIL – the conference organised in Ely last year by Fenland SOIL was impressive, and it’s really excellent that the organisation has engaged the farmers, who after all are the people who actually manage the land in the fens.

A Combined Authority project to retrofit energy efficiency measures in care homes hasn’t really taken off, and it’s been difficult to encourage interest in the scheme. The recommendation is to extend the programme to December 2025, but I second a proposal from the Vice Chair of the committee which would cap the programme now and release funding to be used for other climate related purposes. That is agreed unanimously.

We receive and note a budget update, and an agenda plan. The next meeting is proposed for June, despite our usual meetings being bi-monthly – and when I question this it’s explained that with local elections in May we can’t be clear about membership of this and other committees until those councils have had their AGMs. There is a lot to discuss, we all agree, so we ask officers to consider how we can make sure business moves on.

The meeting ends at 12:45PM.

East Cambridgeshire District Council planning committee

Two planning applications on the agenda this afternoon – both controversial, both in my county council division, and one in my ward.

Ely Road, Little Downham

The first is an application for a ‘rural exception site’ of 39 affordable dwellings off Ely Road, Little Downham, next to the new Old Fir Close development. The vast majority of these are proposed to be for rent. The recommendation is for approval.

The access road to Old Fir Close is already an issue of concern to local residents, and if there’s a similar access road to the new development within metres of Old FIr Close, some way of managing and calming the traffic up and down Ely Road will be essential.

One resident speaks to the Committee about the risks of flooding and failure of sewage systems. The applicant refers to the housing needs survey carried out by Cambridgeshire ACRE and endorsed by the District Council, and describes it as a unique opportunity to address the acute shortage of affordable housing locally. The Parish Council objects, saying the development is disproportionate to the size of the village, and re-stating the comments about arrangements for foul water and traffic impacts.

The district councillor speaks about the need for affordable housing, but also the unresolved tree issue, the highways impact and the drainage risks. She questions the need for demolition of the existing farmhouse, and says the application breaches several policies in the Local Plan.

The application is approved by six votes in favour, two votes against, and two abstentions.

Garden Close, Sutton

The second is the latest attempt by Abbey Homes at an application for the detail of their proposed development at Garden Close Sutton. They already have outline permission.

Cllr Mark Inskip and I as local councillors are both present to speak against this application.

A neighbouring couple are called to speak as objectors, and tell the committee about the issues the application poses for themselves and their family, and the obligations of the council under the Public Sector Equality Duty. There will be an opportunity for committee members to ask questions of them at a closed session shortly.

The applicant’s agent speaks to the committee, saying the most recent application should be regarded as low density and predominantly single storey, and asks that the application be approved. He is asked about disability-accessible play equipment, drainage, housing mix, parking. He confirms that a ‘stunning’ weeping willow on the site will be lost.

Cllr Mark Inskip speaks next, about the Sutton Neighbourhood Plan, its policy on housing mix, the Sutton housing needs assessment, and how the development fails to meet local needs. There’s a discussion about whether it’s possible to create a development of one-bedroomed, single-storey homes.

I speak about the council’s Public Sector Equality Duty to the neighbour of the site, who has protected characteristics, and how in my view it has failed in that duty.

The applicant’s agent is given extra time to speak, because both Cllr Inskip and I have spoken. He’s asked about the proposals for fencing.

The meeting now goes into closed session.

The public session resumes, and the Planning Manager summarises the officers’ view.

A proposal to refuse the application is put to the meeting. It is defeated with two votes in favour, five against, and three abstentions.

A proposal is then put to approve the application, but with a condition about fencing. This passes with five votes in favour, two against, and three abstentions.

The meeting concludes at 6:30PM.

Sutton fire station public meeting

A public meeting organised by Sutton Parish Council this evening was an opportunity to put questions to Cambridgeshire fire chiefs about proposals to close three fire stations in the county, including Sutton’s.

Jon Anderson, Stuart Smith, and Nev Burgess from the local fire service were on hand to answer questions from the thirty or so residents who turned out to The Glebe.

They laid out the challenge of recruiting the on-call firefighters needed to keep the Sutton station open, especially for daytime duties. Indeed, a few years ago Sutton’s fire station was closed for eighteen months as only two firefighters were available. (I have asked for data from that period, to see what effect the closure had had.)

As many as 85 per cent of calls in the Sutton area were already answered by crews outside the village, from Ely, Cottenham, Chatteris and elsewhere.

Comments and questions from the public included whether the fire service had been sufficiently active in attempting to recruit—the risk to the Sutton station had come as a surprise to many people. There was discussion about the attractiveness of the package offered to on-call firefighters and whether it could be made more flexible. Recruits had to be at least eighteen years of age, but there was no upper limit provided they could pass the fitness test.

No decision has yet been made, and the fire service will be carrying out a programme of public engagement in the coming months.

Garden Close Sutton planning application

Tomorrow (Wednesday 6 March) East Cambs District Council’s planning committee will determine the latest application by Abbey Homes for their development at Garden Close.

The committee refused Abbey’s previous application in April last year, and Abbey have appealed against this refusal. Abbey have also submitted yet another fresh application alongside their appeal.

The council originally said it would wait for the appeal before deciding the new application, but has now changed its mind. There are very few changes between the new application and the one that was refused last year.

Abbey still have their outline planning permission—but haven’t yet come up with acceptable detail for the ‘reserved matters’.

Both Mark and I have registered to speak tomorrow, opposing the application for the same reasons we objected a year ago.

Highways & Transport Committee

Cambridgeshire County Council’s Highways & Transport Committee met this morning, with a packed agenda. All the papers and appendices can be found here.

Puddock Road: the 2.5km single-track stretch of Puddock Road south of the Forty Foot has been the scene of a number of fatal collisions where vehicles have ended up in the water. Each one of these is a personal tragedy. The committee made a unanimous decision to put in place a camera-enforced closure of this stretch of road to all except those requiring access, and to undertake works next to the carriageway to remove rutting.

A142 / A10 BP roundabout: another unanimous decision to accept £550,000 from the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority for a study to determine the best option to create a safe crossing for ‘non-motorised users’ at this dangerous junction. I campaigned vigorously against the decision by the previous Mayor and county council, and the current district council, to create this risk, and I’m pleased that the current Mayor and county council, and local county councillors Piers Coutts and Alison Whelan, are committed to action to put it right.

Active travel toolkit: a lively debate about the proposal to adopt a ‘toolkit’ for new housing developments to help make them as attractive and as usable as possible for walking, cycling and active travel. What I described as ‘a load of pish’ from Conservative councillors about ‘twenty-minute cities’; representing a village which has already lost its bank and library, and in the last twelve months faced the threat of losing its GP surgery, fire station and post office, I pointed out how important local residents feel it is to have services close at hand. And the rather circular argument from one Conservative councillor that ‘in the north of the county a car is a necessity’ – surely a reason to improve active travel for those who can’t afford to run a car? It was pointed out in response by the chair that Fenland has the highest rates of active travel in the county outside of the city of Cambridge. The toolkit is an important document, and needs work, but it’s an acceptable start. It’s approved by a majority, with four of the six Conservative councillors abstaining.

Highways maintenance capital programme: a draft programme for the next five years, along with a list of suggestions for spending the large additional investment in repairing our roads that was included in the Joint Administration’s budget. It won’t reverse the decades of decline in our roads that we were left with, but it will help in a number of places and that has to be welcomed. The programme is supported with five out of six Conservative councillors abstaining.

Transport Strategy Action Plans and Integrated Transport Block Funding: updated plans for Fenland and Huntingdonshire, and proposals for spending £3.215M in highways funding passed to the council by the Combined Authority. This includes funding for the popular Local Highways Improvement scheme, 20MPH zones, and road safety schemes including Puddock Road (above). The Transport plans were agreed by a majority, and the spending proposals unanimously.

Procurement of legal advice on Guided Busway: delegating authority to officers to procure legal advice in defending the case being brought by the Health & Safety Executive in connection with three fatal, and one serious, incidents on the busway. Approved unanimously.

Electric Vehicle Charging Cable ‘crossing-over’ Pilot: a trial across the county on a first-come first-served basis of EV car charging solutions that involve cables crossing the highway. A number of councillors raise concerns about risks, but there is also a risk of not moving forward with access to EV charging. The pilot is agreed with one vote against.

Pavement parking: in which the committee is requested to ask the Greater Cambridge Partnership to develop and fund a pilot of pavement parking restrictions in Cambridge. The proposal is carried.

The Committee is running out of time because the meeting has over-run and the next meeting is waiting to be let in!

Financial monitoring report: agreed.

Committee forward plan: agreed.

All over by 2:30PM.

Recent planning applications in the Sutton division

East Cambridgeshire District Council has published the following planning applications in the Sutton division.

24/00190/CLE
Coveney
Land adjacent to Hale Fen House Hale Fen Lane Wardy Hill
Certificate of lawful development to establish lawful commencement and planning permission in perpetuity through the implementation of foundations, partial drainage, and formation of site entrance.

24/00208/FUL
Witchford
Mills Barn Mills Lane Witchford
Change of use of an existing garage/outbuilding to a one bedroom residential annex to the main dwelling of Mills Barn.

You can find further information on the district council’s planning pages. If you would like to respond formally to the council about any planning application, please write to the district council and not to me.  You can comment

  • online using the council’s public access web page (the link above);
  • by email to plservices@eastcambs.gov.uk;
  • or by post to the Planning Department, The Grange, Nutholt Lane, Ely, CB7 4EE

Healthy places survey now open

How can we create communities that are healthier, easy to access, and more inclusive?

What do you think about the places where you live, work, travel and socialise in our county?

This survey is now open and should take around ten or fifteen minutes. Your feedback will help local health and care leaders to understand the experiences and values of Cambridgeshire residents, as they develop their Joint Strategic Needs Assessment for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.

The closing date is Monday 15 April 2024.

Complete the survey: Healthy Places Joint Strategic Needs Assessment Community Survey (smartsurvey.co.uk)

Recent planning applications in the Sutton division

East Cambridgeshire District Council has published the following planning application in the Sutton division.

24/00143/FUL
Witcham
Witcham House Headleys Lane Witcham CB6 2LH
To add two stables and store area to existing stable block.

You can find further information on the district council’s planning pages. If you would like to respond formally to the council about any planning application, please write to the district council and not to me.  You can comment

  • online using the council’s public access web page (the link above);
  • by email to plservices@eastcambs.gov.uk;
  • or by post to the Planning Department, The Grange, Nutholt Lane, Ely, CB7 4EE

Recent planning applications in the Sutton division

East Cambridgeshire District Council has published the following planning applications in the Sutton division.

24/00073/FUL
Little Downham
37 Cannon Street Little Downham CB6 2SS
Garage alterations.

24/00165/FUL
Little Downham
5 Acred Close Little Downham CB6 2SE
Demolish existing conservatory and replacement single storey rear extension.

24/00151/FUL
Witchford
69 Orton Drive Witchford CB6 2JG
Conversion of formerly converted garage to form utility room, toilet and boiler room. Works include replacement of previously retained garage door with personnel door and two new windows—part retrospective.

You can find further information on the district council’s planning pages. If you would like to respond formally to the council about any planning application, please write to the district council and not to me.  You can comment

  • online using the council’s public access web page (the link above);
  • by email to plservices@eastcambs.gov.uk;
  • or by post to the Planning Department, The Grange, Nutholt Lane, Ely, CB7 4EE