Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meetings of  21 August 2024 and 18 September 2024.

The minutes of the 21 August and 18 September 2024 were signed and agreed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

Tim Williams presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Georgina McCrae, on behalf of the applicant. Ms McCrae stated that the application was originally submitted in November 2022 and seeks outline planning permission for up to 175 new homes with access in detail and all other matters reserved for future consideration. She advised that over the last 2 years Allison Homes has worked constructively with officers and statutory consultees, including the Highways Authority, Natural England, the IDB, LLFA and the Town Council to reach the scheme before members today.

Ms McCrae stated as outlined in the officer’s report and presentation the development will provide 175 new homes in a sustainable location including a minimum of 20% affordable housing helping to address the shortfall of affordable delivered within the District in recent years, already being in discussions with the Housing Officer to ensure the detailed proposals provide for up-to-date local need. She advised that 3.6 hectares of new publicly accessible open space will be created, which is equivalent to over one-third of the site and provides areas for play, habitat creation and allows a smooth transition into the open countryside to the north and east.

Ms McCrae expressed the view that there will be a significant net gain in on-site biodiversity delivered with a predicted 13.8% increase in on-site habitats and 90% increase in hedgerows. She made the point that there would be financial contributions of £2,000 per plot which will be payable towards the NHS, East of England Ambulance and education services.

Ms McCrae referred to highways and that a package of mitigation measures equivalent to around £250,000 have been agreed to mitigate the impact of the development, including a 3 metre footway/cycleway which will be extended to the site providing a safe connection to and from the primary school and wider networks, a series of passing places along Drybread Road to the north and east to improve access to the A605 and welcome travel packs will be provided to all new residents which will include the provision of bus and cycle vouchers to encourage sustainable travel. She feels, as concluded in the officer’s report, that the proposal is considered sustainable development and would accord with the Development Plan when taken as a whole, there are no outstanding objections from technical consultees and it is considered, subject to the detailed design at reserved matters stage, the site has potential to deliver a high-quality living environment for both future and existing residents.

Ms McCrae hoped members would be able to support the application in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Members asked questions of Ms McCrae as follows:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to the cycleway, with it passing invariably several roads coming onto Drybread Road that are quite busy and asked what mitigating factors would be put in place to protect children that are crossing Victory Avenue/Coronation Avenue and a series  ...  view the full minutes text for item P42/24

To determine the application.

Tim Williams presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Michael Braithwaite, the agent. Mr Braithwaite stated he is a Chartered Town Planner working with Robert Doughty Consultancy as agent for the applicant Rose Homes EA Ltd based in Whittlesey and he is accompanied by Dino Biagioni, the Managing Director of Rose Homes. He stated that the application is for 249 dwellings on the edge of Whittlesey and as officers have stated the development is in accordance with the Local Plan which allows development of up to 249 dwellings on sites on the edge of larger settlements such as Whittlesey unless the benefit of development is outweighed by the harm.

Mr Braithwaite expressed the view that the development will ensure that housing supply for Whittlesey, and specifically in Fenland, is met into the future, with the targets set in the Local Plan as officers said in the previous debate being a floor not a ceiling. He stated that although in outline the application would accord with national and local policies regarding meeting housing need, providing open space, affordable housing, an appropriate drainage strategy within the site, preserve and enhance ecology and diversity including the safeguarding of the Nene Washes in line with its designation as a European national important site.

Mr Braithwaite expressed the opinion that the development is not at a risk of flooding and will not raise the risk of flooding elsewhere, the surface water drainage system will be managed on site to maintain discharge at existing predicted greenfield levels that will discharge into the wider IDB network and discussions have taken place through the creation of the development with the IDB, LLFA and the Environment Agency on the surface water drainage strategy. He stated that highway safety will be maintained, with a number of pre-application discussions being held with the Highway Authority to try and agree the approach and have continued in a positive fashion throughout the application process.

Mr Braithwaite expressed the view that the residents of the development would have access to the existing jobs and services provided by Whittlesey and the wider area including but not restricted to the new supermarket to the south. He referred to the Neighbourhood Plan which sets out the issue of potential coalescence with Eastrea and provides a buffer zone to the east of Drybread Road.

Mr Braithwaite stated that they are aware of the range of objections made to the application both from statutory consultees in the past and local members of the public regarding highway safety, impact on local services including health care and education, loss of open countryside and agricultural land, impact on the amenity of existing residents, impacts on heritage but through the application process the applicant has provided further information including a report on the extensive archaeological investigations, assessment of the potential impact on the Nene Washes, a range of highway improvements to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P43/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson expressed the view that Guyhirn over the years has evolved to become what can be considered as a commuter settlement, particularly along Gull Road where there are very big £500,000 houses which are occupied by London commuters. She feels this has sadly resulted in local people being brought out of the village with limited opportunities for lower cost family homes and this scheme presents an excellent opportunity to provide lower cost family homes within the heart of the village which can be delivered straight away.

Mrs Jackson made the point that the scheme has been recommended for refusal for various reasons, which include the principle, form and character, residential amenity, highway and flood risk issues. She stated that with regards to the principle, form and character, paragraphs 10.3 and 10.8 of the committee report state that the four plots to the front are acceptable in principle and officers also acknowledge that there is development in-depth elsewhere within the village, the issue, therefore, lies with the three in-depth dwellings but, in her view, there are many examples of development in-depth within the area, such as Nene Close, Glebe Gardens, Spencer Drove and Hillcrest Drive, with the proposal extending no further into the countryside than these developments and will extend no further than the curtilage of other dwellings within the vicinity of the site and despite the development not strictly being infill development there would be no character harm only benefits to be gained by providing lower cost housing within a sustainable location.

Mrs Jackson referred to residential amenity comments which are noted, however, the views from the rear bedroom windows towards garden areas would be obscured by the single-storey rear projections on the dwellings, which, in her view, is no different to any other estate situation anywhere else within the District. She expressed the opinion that the scheme is not cluttered, there are patios around the dwellings which may give a deceptively cluttered impression of more buildings but is actually quite spacious and there is opportunity to provide landscaping to soften the appearance of the buildings and parking areas and they would be happy to accept a condition to this effect.

Mrs Jackson referred to an objection on parking due to the garage spaces falling slightly smaller than the prescribed standard, however, in her view, the Local Plan also states that lesser parking provision may be accepted in central locations with good transport links. She stated that, given this site is within the built up settlement of Guyhirn, it is in a sustainable location where future residents can walk or cycle to amenities as well as catch public transport to go further afield, therefore, in her opinion, this could be an instance where lesser parking provision is acceptable but there are also no objections  ...  view the full minutes text for item P44/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Kevin Salter, the applicant, and Chris Walford, the agent. Mr Salter stated that he represents the company that owns the land, with the whole of land shown yellow and outlined in red on the displayed plan being acquired in 1998, which was a huge problem as the site was overgrown, vandalised and had anti-social behaviour. He advised that they tried to work very closely with all the authorities, the Parish Council, the local councillors, local residents and the then Tree Officer who agreed that he could not do anything until they started working closely with him.

Mr Salter stated that the site was derelict after the former rectory on the yellow site was burnt down in the mid-1990s prior to that the previous owner had got planning consents including this land for a high density residential development and the conversion of the former Chapter House, with that company going into liquidation it was brought by his company from the Anglo Irish Bank and they have tried to pursue a sensible planning application but one that works to enhance the Conservation Area, with the former development proposals, in his view, being severely detrimental to the Conservation Area. He advised that a scheme was produced with all these different authorities input for a low density five-unit scheme, which was developed and called Chapter Gardens, which, in his view, is a prime example of how to turn around a problem site.

Mr Salter stated that policy at that time was that you could only get five dwellings off a shared driveway and which is why the scheme was produced, which works very well. He advised that the other land was kept back, which he is unsure of as to why, with various suggestions of what could happen on it but over the last 20 years it has become a nightmare of a site and has become badly vandalised.

Mr Salter expressed the view that the trees are mostly Grade C trees, he has worked closely with the Tree Officer and any works have been in accordance with applications or advice received, with the Tree Officer recommending on a previous planning application removal of all the trees so although there are TPOs on some of those trees most of those trees have been supported by the Tree Officer to have them removed. He referred to Paragraph 72 of Subsection 2 of the NPPF which encourages local authorities where Conservation Areas can be enhanced and this is all they are seeking to do here, it is not about getting money from two houses, it is to bring that site to a remediated site, they have a remediation plan as part of the planning application which would deal with all the problem sites within the trees and the replanting of the boundaries with native hedgerows and species.

Mr Walford reiterated that of all the trees on site  ...  view the full minutes text for item P45/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Marks referred to the recent approval of single living in containers and that officers were going to find out the area of the container, is it on par with this proposal? David Rowen responded that this was the application site at Mill Close in Wisbech, which was an application submitted by a Housing Association to be occupied by the Ferry Project as transitional housing for people that were previously homeless and the internal size of those units was about 25 square metres, however, those units did also have an area of external veranda which could be used as amenity space and also had access to communal garden facilities. He expressed the view that in comparison with the nature and detail of the accommodation and its access to amenity space there is a significant difference with this proposal.

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough expressed the view that the officer’s recommendation is correct, it is far too restricted floor space.

·         Councillor Imafidon agreed, it needs something but quality accommodation is needed in Wisbech and if this is approved it would not be quality living.

Proposed by Councillor Imafidon, seconded by Councillor Sennitt Clough and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Imafidon declared, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Wisbech Town Council but takes no part in planning.  He further advised that he lives in proximity to the application site but remains impartial and will approach the application with an open-mind)

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Lee Bevens, the agent. Mr Bevens referred to item 1.2 and that his client has two previous applications approved along Wype Road for 4 bungalows in total going as far back as 2019 and whilst policy LP3 means that only infill development is accepted the scheme looks to continue ribbon development form on this side of Wype Road and will be the last two bungalows applied for by his client. He expressed the view that members have previously agreed that the previous bungalows approved followed the general pattern of development along Wype Road, which is ribbon or frontage development and he disagrees with officers that this proposal would fail to respect the core shape and form of the settlement by virtue of following this linear pattern along Wype Road.

Mr Bevens understands that some locals have raised the issue of a footpath but the extent of the adoptable footpath is on the opposite side of the road outside of No.127 Wype Road and should any development be approved on that side of the road then the adoptable footpath would be extended further along Wype Road providing additional pedestrian safety. He referred to item 1.3 and they do not believe the site is contrary to policy LP12, the site is adjacent to the existing developed footprint of the village being the two large detached bungalows to the north-east and the two bungalows currently under construction and they do not feel it would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside as the dwellings proposed would be single-storey in height and reflect nearby dwellings.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that the proposal is of a scale and location that is in keeping with the established form of Wype Road and will extend the linear features but in a manner which is proportionate to the small village of Eastrea and will provide two bungalows offering a wider choice of housing. He stated that officers refer to policy LP16 in their recommendation and the site does retain the hedgerow to the front of the site, which would be reinforced in a future reserved matters application and this could be conditioned.

Mr Bevens expressed the opinion that the scheme will improve the character of the local area and does not adversely impact on the street scene. He referred to the slide on the presentation screen, which is an uploaded image from the forthcoming Whittlesey Bypass Consultation, with the site marked in red, which shows the northern and southern bypass options and should the favoured southern bypass come forward this area of Eastrea will be well placed to access that infrastructure and the associated benefits.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that the proposed scheme will offer well designed bungalows which will meet local demand, with Environmental Health and Highways raising no objection and the site falling within Flood Zone 1 and is  ...  view the full minutes text for item P47/24

To confirm and sign the confidential minutes from the meeting of 21 August 2024.

The confidential minutes of the meeting of 21 August 2024 were signed and agreed as an accurate record.

(Members resolved to exclude the public from the meeting for this item of business should it need to be discussed on the grounds that it involved the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972)