Showground redevelopment at East Of England Showground, Alwalton, Peterborough

“23/00412/OUT are essentially 2 parts of the same overall development, with the same key issues raised in public representations, with consultee responses generally referring to both applications, and with very similar recommended conditions and an intention to draft a single section 106 agreement to cover both applications. As such they are considered together below:”

“Officer Comment: Most of these concerns have been addressed in the main report or in other sections of this report. The LHA has also responded to a number of SPURR’s specific highways questions as below: Q. Number of traffic movements for the whole proposal? A. 1205 vehicles in the AM peak (2-way) and 1348 vehicles in the PM peak (2-way).”

“Q. What consideration has been given to a second access to deal with the anticipated larger traffic movements that will result on Joseph Odam Way and Oundle Road, such as off Bakewell Road? A. None, the applicants’ have not proposed a second access, and the traffic modelling has been carried out using solely the Joseph Odam Way access.”

“Officer Comment: The applicant had sought clarification on the level of Section 106 contributions requested by the NHS, in particular relating to the care village. They had also cited case law relating to a quashed appeal decision in Harborough. In respect of the case law quoted by the applicant, this was found to be not directly relevant to the applications, being concerned with revenue expenditure rather than capital investment.”

“Continue to recommend conditions and section 106 obligations. Officer Comment: PCC Highways have set out clearly in their latest consultee comments what issues can addressed by condition/section 106 and what additional information is required post committee to resolve the outstanding issues, should the Committee approve the applications.”

“Huntingdonshire District Council – Reiterates no objections North Northamptonshire Council – Questions raised about amount of traffic on A605 Active Travel England – Reiterate their previous concerns about maximising opportunities for walking and cycling and links to the existing network. Officer Comment: ATE’s comments are noted.”

“PCC Open Space Officer – Reiterates concerns about allotment provision, lack of detail of open space and play areas, and makes various suggestions and comments around the location and type of open space. States quantum and type of open space that would be required in accordance with policy. Officer Comment: The Open Space Officer’s comments are noted.”

“Additional Representations from the Public SPURR (Showground Plans Under Resident Review) – SPURR are a local residents group from the Orton Waterville Ward, set up following a public meeting arranged by Cllr Nicola Day. For the avoidance of doubt this is their official representation and any earlier representation claiming to be from SPURR is the view of an individual member rather than the group collectively. SPURR raise a number of concerns.”

“In any case, and notwithstanding the removal of the track and the arguments made in the Leisure and Community Impact Assessment, both applications are departures and contrary to the Local Plan, in part because they result in the loss of existing culture, leisure and tourist facilities and the planning balance acknowledges this. 150 further representations. These have mostly been joint objections to both applications.”

“The Committee considered the report and representations. A motion was proposed and seconded to go with officer recommendation to REFUSE the application due there being no extenuating circumstances to justify a further extension to the deadline for completion of the section 106 agreement. The Committee RESOLVED unanimously to REFUSE the planning permission.”

“The development would not provide the necessary infrastructure to make it acceptable in planning terms, contrary to Local Plan Policy LP14 and Section 4 of the NPPF.”