Another Controversial Planning Application

Another controversial planning application being submitted to Fenland District Council
Another list of ‘issues’ that this application brings.
It is unfortunate that Government(s) past and present make it very easy to get planning granted due to the ever increasing demand on housing stock.
This application at the ‘Old’ Westhaven Nursery (Peterborough Road A605) site brings several issues.
Traffic for instance again having to come out on the A605 nearby the ‘impending’ Kings Dyke Bridge.
Below is a letter from Phillip Parker Associates – who administer the Kings Dyke Nature Reserve. This is the 2nd time valid planning objections are being made – and I am asking like many – is anyone looking or listening to the publics concerns regarding this application.

Many members who commented on the Westhaven Nursery development will have received notification from Fenland District Council that further information has been submitted by the developers. The following is a summary of our comments on this information (to be made tomorrow). We would urge all members who originally commented to write again making their concerns known. The deadline for comments is Friday 18th May.

WESTHAVEN NURSERY
F/YR18/0128/RM
F/YR17/3124/COND 

Summary of comments on the latest submission with respect to the above development: 

1. BUFFER ZONE – No changes have been made to the buffer zone as shown on the original layout plans (only 10m on the northern boundary). In accordance with comments and objections previously made by Natural England, The Wildlife Trust, Buglife, the Local Authority Ecologist and Philip Parker Associates (on behalf of the reserve), this is considered unacceptable to protect both the interests of Kings Dyke Nature Reserve and locally protected species. There is little detail provided on how the buffer zone will be managed and funded in the long term. The development still includes land for proposed additional houses above the current permssion which could easily be re-allocated into an increased buffer zone. 
2. PROTECTIVE FENCING – Condition 17 asks for a scheme for fencing and boundary treatment to protect the reserve and vulnerable species from cat predation and people disturbance. The condition requires that this buffer is retained in-perpetuity. The proposed fence design is a wooden fence with a mesh overhang. The life expectancy of a timber fence is typically 15 years but clearly can be more or less than this depending on how it is looked after. It would therefore be very easy to damage and breach particularly if included as part of the garden fencing. There are no details as to how this fence is to be checked and maintained. Clearly the design of fence does not fulfil the requirements of the condition.
3. GREAT CRESTED NEWTS – No information has been provided on how the great crested newt population will be mitigated under the necessary EPS licence other than noting trapping for 70 days. Limited information is given on receptor sites for the newts to be translocated. The Local Planning Authority has to be satisfied that an EPS licence will be granted (R. (Morge) v Hampshire CC [2011]. Currently, there is insufficient detail submitted to enable them to do this.
4. POLLUTION – Still no information has been provided as to how the water resources of the nature reserve will be monitored and protected from pollution that might emanate from the proposed development site through their proposed drainage infiltration system. 

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me on the number below.
Regards
Phil Parker
admin@philipparkerassociates.co.uk

 

This entry was posted in Issues and Concerns, News. Bookmark the permalink.