Agenda item

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly 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 Chris Walford, the agent. Mr Walford stated that this application seeks approval for eight 2 to 3 bedroom dwellings creating much needed housing provision within the built-up area of Wisbech and the proposal has the full support of Wisbech Town Council, Highways, Ecology and the Tree Officer. He added that the proposal involves the demolition of the former Superseal showroom and its associated factory to the rear where the windows and doors were manufactured on site, with Superseal now having moved the whole operation and their staff to a new location out of town and the site has been vacant for about 12 months.

Mr Walford made the point that the site is vacant, was operated by Superseal for many years and it is a quite historic use and there are no current restrictions on the activities or working hours so in theory any future business could, with similar working operations in retail or light industrial use, potentially move in and continue operating from the site. He expressed the view that this is a non-conforming use within a built-up residential area that is flanked on three sides by existing residential dwellings.

Mr Walford expressed the opinion that, based on its location and the proximity to existing dwellings, they feel that the site should ultimately be residential, with the site having an extant permission for 3 dwellings, however, this permission is not financially viable when factoring in demolition costs, tree protection and BNG offset so the number has been increased to make it a viable and workable scheme. He feels that the site is in a sustainable location, it is located a short walk from the town centre, close to local amenities and the St Peters Primary School.

Mr Walford referred to the officer’s report for the extant permission describing the site as well situated, sustainable and in accordance with planning policy. He expressed the view that, with regard to overlooking to neighbours, the site is enclosed by dense trees and hedges, all of which will be retained as part of the scheme and the site has been designed to ensure there is no impact on existing trees, one of which is a TPO tree, hence the more unusual layout that is purely to avoid the root protection areas.

Mr Walford made the point that officers have stated that they have concern with some of the gardens being shaded by existing trees, however, in his view, this is personal preference and consideration by a buyer in the future, not a reason to refuse the development and it is nice to see new build plots that do have trees, referring to the Chapter Gardens site in Leverington which had many trees and the conclusion was that it was not a reason to refuse. He stated that, in terms of flood risk, the proposal adopts the same finished floor levels agreed as part of the extant permission, which was deemed to pass the sequential and exception tests as it was a redevelopment of a site within a built-up urban area previously used for Classes A-D and, in his view, this provides significant weight and at the time outweighed any concerns before which is a material consideration that should be made and considered with this application.

Members asked questions of Mr Walford as follows:

·       Councillor Marks referred to the concern regarding overlooking and shaded areas and asked has this design been formulated to protect the trees or if there were less properties would that make a difference? Mr Walford responded that the Tree Officer and third party tree specialist came to the site and there has been a real focus on trying to retain those trees as he feels they are key to the site and are in good condition, with there not being a way to remove under policy unless they are an age dying or decaying trees. He stated that the ones on the perimeter were essential to be kept for the reasons that are being discussed today. Mr Walford acknowledged that it is not an average and an usually shaped site and the indicative outline for the three showed them very close to the boundaries, which were approved under delegated powers so any number, in his view, between 3 and 8 due to the nature of the trees and the shape of the site would result in the same. He expressed concern that the site is now vacant, what is going to happen with it, it is in the middle of the town, it is in a residential area but recognised it is not going to tick all the boxes, however, all consultees are supportive.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Gerstner asked for confirmation that the pathway for pedestrians is fully compliant, and officers are supportive of this now? Tom Donnelly responded that the reference in the update report was on amended plans that provided clarification about the extension of the footpath along the site frontage and this has been considered by the Highway Authority and they are satisfied that subject to conditions the scheme would be acceptable in terms of the highway safety impact and safety of pedestrians using that footpath.

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

·       Councillor Marks expressed the view that the agents are working with a lot of restrictions on this site due to the trees but it is nice to see the trees are being retained and whilst there will be overlooking most properties overlook something. He stated that he does not agree with the one car parking space outside the window of No.6 but the design has been made to fit onto this land and smaller gardens and shading probably adds to the character. Councillor Marks stated that he will be supporting the application.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that it is a site that does need redevelopment otherwise it will sit there as a brownfield piece of land for decades and the agent, in her view, has done a great job to fit the development into this awkward piece of land. She stated that she will also support it.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that these trees will come down at some time as trees do die and it is about the quality of the living space versus the trees and whilst he understands the issue of viability from the previous application it seems to be cramming dwellings onto the site due to the trees and putting car parking in front of one of the dwellings, with the proposal not being ideal. He questions the thinking about putting trees before people’s quality of living.

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that every street in Fenland has cars parked outside the front of a house so does not agree this is an issue.

·       Councillor Marks referred to a previous item on TPO where trees could be replaced so these trees may be replaced and he hopes in 20 years time that 75% of the trees would be left but there would also be vegetation.

·       Councillor Gerstner referred to the officer’s report which states there is insufficient information to demonstrate that refuse vehicles can adequately transverse the site and he tends to agree.

·       Councillor Marks stated that there are various sized dustcarts and if the applicant liaises with Fenland there would be some mechanism to empty the bins. He made the point that the site is in Flood Zone 2, committee keep discussing flood zones and he would be more concerned about this than dustcarts and layout.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he cannot remember this site flooding, even in the great flood which occurred he believes in 1981.

·       Councillor Meekins stated that the great flood was in 1978, but he does feel it is putting ‘a quart into a pint pot’ and 8 dwellings are being squeezed in.  He feels that the car parking is a red herring as most properties have car parked outside their windows.

·       Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that planning is about land usage and this proposal makes good use of land.

·       Councillor Benney expressed the view that a better scheme could be produced with the trees taken down and there is too much emphasis put on these trees but recognised that this is not the application before members. He feels that whilst the proposal does work the trees are standing in the way of where people are going to live, they are going to be crammed when they could have bigger gardens and if the trees were removed the agent would have come up with a totally different and better scheme.

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that if someone does not want a small garden, they will not purchase these properties.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that it is a good use of land with no trees being damaged or removed, it is a brownfield site, the site lies within Flood Zone 2 and homes are required in Wisbech.

(Councillor Imafidon declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Committee, that he is a member of Wisbech Town Council and was a member of the Town Council’s Planning Committee when this application was considered and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Meekins declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Committee, that he is a member of Wisbech Town Council but takes no part in planning)