Council decides not to fight against appeal to build 115 new homes on edge of Yaxley despite calls to protect the village’s buffer with Peterborough

Huntingdonshire District Council initially refused to grant planning permission for the proposed development at Livery Stable Folly Farm, off London Road.

However, government changes to the way the number of new homes that need to be built in the area are calculated saw the authority back down from its opposition.

The developer, Abbey Properties Cambridgeshire Ltd, said its proposals to build up to 115 new homes offered an “excellent opportunity” to meet housing needs in the area.

The developer also said 40 per cent of the homes would be made available as affordable housing.

The plans faced backlash from people living in the village, who raised concerns that building 115 new homes off London Road would make the area less safe for children living nearby.

Last year the district council announced it had refused to give planning permission for the development, claiming it would “result in harm to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside”.

The developer lodged an appeal with the planning inspectorate to try and overturn this decision and a public inquiry was held this week (August 12).

At the start of the hearing it was highlighted that the district council had changed its position on the development and would not be defending the appeal.

Rowan Clapp, the barrister representing the district council, highlighted that five of the six original reasons for refusal had been based on insufficient information being provided.

He said since the decision was issued the developer had provided more information to address these points.

Therefore the district council did not consider there was “any sound planning basis to resist the development” on five of the six original reasons for refusal.

Mr Clapp said this left one reason for refusal based on the harm to the landscape by building the new homes on the edge of the village.

He explained that the authority had undertaken a review of its position on this issue.

He said the district council still believed the development would result in harm to the character of Yaxley due to “urbanisation”, and that it would impact on the physical and visual separation between the village and the Great Haddon development in Peterborough.

However, Mr Clapp said the change in national calculations that decide how many homes need to be built in the area meant the district council no longer had a five year housing supply.

He explained that this meant tilted balance now applied which said developments should be allowed unless the harms “significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits”.

Mr Clapp said the proposed 115 homes would make a “meaningful contribution to housing supply in the district”, which he said was a benefit the district council recognised needed to be given “significant weight”.

He added that new affordable homes and the redevelopment of “previously developed land” were also benefits.

He said: “While there is some harm, this does not outweigh the benefits of this scheme, as a result of that balancing exercise applying the national policy approach, the proposal should be allowed.”

Councillor Andrew Wood, chairman of Yaxley Parish Council, criticised the proposed development and said it should not go ahead as planned.

He told the inquiry that the parish council still had concerns about highway safety and the “compromising of the buffer between Peterborough and Yaxley”.

Cllr Wood said the proposed access road from the development onto London Road was “not suitable” for the number of homes planned to be built.

He raised concerns that the development would “create queueing on an already busy road and create safety issues”.

Cllr Wood added that the road traffic survey used in the assessment of the highway impact was taken before the new traffic lights were installed down the road for the Great Haddon development.

He said this had led to increased traffic on London Road, which he argued was not reflected in the assessments.

Cllr Wood said he was also worried about the “overdevelopment” of the village, which he said had been “developed significantly within a confined area”.

He said: “The fact that Huntingdonshire has a requirement for a significant number of houses does not mean, in our view, Yaxley should be compacted even more.

“Yaxley has taken its share already, other areas should do so.”

Reuben Taylor KC, representing the developer, highlighted that all traffic and transport experts had said there would not be a negative impact on highway safety from the development.

He pointed out that both the highways teams at Cambridgeshire County Council and Peterborough City Council had not objected to the development, subject to the imposition of relevant planning conditions.

Mr Taylor also said there was no specific local plan policy that opposed the coalescence between Yaxley and Peterborough.

He claimed the district council could have designated the land as Folly Farm as a buffer area in its last local plan, but did not do so.

Mr Taylor said the development would offer a number of benefits, including providing housing “in an area with a pressing and urgent need for more housing provision”.

He also argued there is a “significant” need in Yaxley for more affordable housing.

Mr Taylor said Yaxley is “one of the most sustainable locations in the district to build more housing”, highlighting that the village has a number of services, like shops and schools, within a “reasonable walking distance” of the proposed development.

He said the developer accepted that there would be some “degree of harm” to the landscape character of the area, but argued this was not significant and would reduce over time as the planting proposed within the development grew.

The planning inspector who led the inquiry will now consider the proposed development and the arguments made on both sides before deciding whether permission can be granted.

If permission is given, further more detailed plans will need to be submitted and approved by the district council before building work can start.