Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alan Davies presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Beverley Moss, the agent. Ms Moss stated that the officer has provided a succinct report on the recently updated position of the flood risk and drainage consultees as a direct response to the reason for deferring the decision at the committee last month. She made the point that the conclusion from those key parties is clear that there is not a technical flood risk or drainage reason to object to the proposals, with the consultees being wholly satisfied with the technical information submitted and that the use of planning conditions will provide the necessary controls for development and she trusts this gives members the comfort they require.

Ms Moss stated that she presented the key headlines last month and reiterated that this is a scheme for 42 affordable homes, with all the homes being available for social rent and provides a secure housing option for people on the lowest of incomes. She added that the Council’s own Housing Needs report confirms there is a clear and demonstrable need for affordable housing of all tenure types in the District.

Ms Moss made the point that all of the homes are bungalows and 6 of those will be fully adapted for wheelchair users, with the new homes in an area identified in the Local Plan for housing growth and that area of growth was subject to a Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) when the area was first identified for inclusion in the Local Plan. She continued that the SFRA confirmed that Wisbech is well defended from fluvial and tidal flood risk issues through a number of things and the Local Plan was adopted on that basis.

Ms Moss expressed the view that the site is sustainably located close to the centre of Wisbech and the site has never flooded in 67 years the current owner has lived there. She stated that the development involves the reuse of previously developed land, which forms a key part of both national and local planning policies.

Ms Moss made the point that there are no objections from the Local Highways Authority both in terms of impact on the local highway network or detailed design in the layout, with the proposal including 8 visitor parking spaces. She feels that officers are satisfied that the new homes will not result in any amenity issues for neighbouring residents and the new homes will be accompanied by new landscaping in the form of private gardens spaces, new trees and other shrub and grass planting, with over 400 metres of new hedgerow and an area of informal amenity open space.

Ms Moss stated that the resolved position of the Council is that contributions for social infrastructure will not be sought on 100% affordable schemes in recognition of the viability issues in this area. She summarised that this is a much-needed affordable housing scheme that seeks to deliver a high-quality development, and which has addressed all relevant technical issues, with no objections from any consultees and she asked committee to resolve to grant planning permission.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Marks expressed surprise that members had asked for four different agencies to attend, all of which are not present today and asked if they were invited in writing or verbally, especially in the case of Anglian Water that they definitely said they could not attend. Alan Davies responded that was correct, he e-mailed each of the four consultees directly and asked for them to attend, along with Highways, with all five responding to the e-mail confirming they were unable to attend and in lieu of this they would provide written responses, which has confirmed they have no concerns.

·       Councillor Connor stated that after the Chairman’s Briefing yesterday he was concerned because a lot of the deferment was around Anglian Water so he contacted a senior officer at Anglian Water and he confirmed to him that no planning officer at Anglian Water had been contacted about attending today but they were asked for extra information which they duly submitted. He suggested that there may have been crossed wires either by Anglian Water or by officers, if it is Anglian Water he will be contacting them again to clarify the situation, but he did think it was imperative that Anglian Water attended today. Alan Davies responded that he was in contact with a planning advisor from Anglian Water, showing the Chairman his computer screen showing the response that they were unable to attend. Councillor Connor stated that he does not like having misinformation from anyone so will be following this up.

·       Councillor Marks stated he believes the senior officer from Anglian Water that Councillor Connor spoke to who members deal with on a regular basis regarding the reservoir did offer to the Chairman to field an officer at the meeting but by the time it came through it was suggested it be via Teams so it was felt that it was not acceptable. Councillor Connor confirmed this to be correct but had to decline his offer through Teams as there would not have been time before the meeting to arrange.

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that there are so many different departments at Anglian Water so can understand why there was some confusion and at her quarterly meeting with them she did bring up the chaos at Barton Road and they did say they were looking into it. She thanked Ms Moss for her update and feels that members have got the information back that they wanted.

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

·       Councillor Marks stated that he is probably going to be in a minority of one, but he is still not keen on this application, with there being something wrong with putting people who are disabled in Flood Zone 3, with it being known in Wisbech that it does flood. He feels that committee is opening itself up to a lot of problems on site should there have to be a major evacuation, he knows that Councillor Benney will come back and say that there is mitigation, but, in his view, sense should prevail in putting people at 55 plus in wheelchairs in an area that is already known to have flooding issues and he does not want to be remembered as a councillor who gave planning permission on a site where people have had to be evacuated and it has caused a lot of problems to the emergency services.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that this is a policy compliant application, there is no reason to refuse it but plenty of reasons for it to be approved, mainly monetary ones as if it is not approved this will go to an appeal, the Council will lose and have costs given against it. He referred to mitigation, with officers having differing views in differing areas and this area is nearer to the sea and is being built 300 mm out of the ground and is not deemed an issue. Councillor Benney referred to the roadworks and feels they are a ‘red herring’ and have no bearing on this application, this is about land usage and, in his view, it is a policy compliant application and committee is only guided by the technical people who inform us it will be safe and whilst he appreciates the concerns of Councillor Marks but this just makes a mockery of Flood Zone 3 to him as you cannot build in Flood Zone 3 in Manea, which is miles from the sea and far less likely to flood than Wisbech is, but building can take place in Wisbech. He stated that national policy does not take into account that Fenland is probably the best drained part of the country and all flooding is based on if all the pumps were turned off at once and not turned back on again, which is very unlikely to happen. He expressed the view that everyone lives with risk and this application needs approving as if it is not it will go to appeal and it will cost the Council money, Council Tax will go up and the development could still be allowed to proceed.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he has certain sympathies with the views of Councillor Marks but there is nowhere else to go, it is a policy compliant application and there are no objections from the technical consultees, with if it went to appeal, in his view, the Council would lose. He added that his heart is saying it should not be supported but his head is saying it should so he will be supporting the proposal.

·       Councillor Marks acknowledged the views of the other councillors, but he is struggling with putting money in front of safety and is not convinced about the area.

·       Councillor Imafidon agreed with the views of Councillor Marks and will not be supporting it.

·       Matthew Leigh clarified that saying the scheme is policy compliant is not correct and what officers are saying the benefits of the scheme outweigh the harm. He stated that officers have laid out what the benefits are, which are subjective, and if this was a normal market scheme officers would possibly not have reached the same recommendation.

·       Councillor Benney asked, in officer’s professional opinion, if this application was refused and went to appeal, what would the outcome be? Matthew Leigh responded that this is a subjective matter, he does not think the Council would get costs, it would be a balancing exercise, planners have made an informed judgement, and it would be in the gift of the inspector.

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that this is a difficult decision, but the benefits outweigh the harm, it is in Flood Zone 3 and local councillors are not in support of it but there is benefit for the surrounding Wisbech area, over 55 homes are required and there is a waiting list for these homes. She stated that she will be supporting the application.

·       Councillor Marks stated that whilst he accepts what Councillor Mrs French says, there will be disabled people living in a flood zone area and elderly people are also impacted with the other issues in the area, which have not been resolved. He questioned that if this was not a retirement type complex would this obtain planning? Matthew Leigh responded that there are a few benefits from the scheme, the quantum of affordable housing and the fact that it is older people’s housing as there is a need. He feels that if officers had a scheme of a less quantum it would probably be less likely because the number of the public benefits go hand in hand with the fact that it is age restricted and the benefits that go with that beyond just the provision of those houses for those residents. Councillor Marks asked for clarification that if this was a standard development the likelihood is that it would not get approval because it does not tick all the boxes regarding the benefits of putting older people into a Flood Zone 3 site. Matthew Leigh responded that if it were a normal market scheme there would be no or minimal public benefits and it cannot be said that the public benefits would outweigh the harm, which is consistent with every application considered. Councillor Marks asked if this is something the Inspector would take into consideration? He added that it has been said that the Council would probably not get costs but if the inspector saw this proposal as a standalone without the age restriction, bearing in mind that the last application considered by committee was approval for 70 apartments on the Nene Waterfront with no downstairs living at all for safety so there is already this application, does this then put the same emphasis on needing this proposal? Matthew Leigh responded that there is an acknowledged need for older people’s housing in the District and he does not consider that a Reserved Matters to go with an outline application would significantly alter the need as this has already received an in principle approval so it is not materially altering the balancing exercise. Councillor Marks summarised that physically able younger people on that site would more than likely be refused as a standard development, but older people is deemed to be acceptable in Flood Zone 3. Alan Davies responded that the test officers have to apply is a sequential test and then the exceptions test and in order to pass the exceptions test it is looking at what the public benefits are being gained from this proposal and those public benefits are the quantum of affordable housing, housing for over 55s and wheelchair adapted housing which outweigh that the site lies partially within Flood Zone 3. He continued that the site is not being considered as an open market site versus an affordable site, it is being considered based on what has been submitted and are those public benefits enough to outweigh the harm that will result in developing a site in Flood Zone 3 and this is undertaken at every committee when sites are looking at that need a sequential test and an exceptions test. Alan Davies made the point that if this site was a purely open market site, it is difficult to say without undertaking the balancing exercise, but there is unlikely to be other public benefits unless a theoretical application had other benefits.

·       Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that the proposal is not being built in Flood Zone 3 as by the time it is raised out of the ground it is above the flood line so people are not being put at risk of flooding because their property is built up, which is the mathematics of building it up 300mm. He added that if every pump was turned off it would only raise the water level by 300mm and the floor levels are being raised out of the ground, the dwellings are being built out of Flood Zone 3 so that they are in Flood Zone 1 by the time the floor level is finished so the risk is taken away. Councillor Benney expressed the view that the calculation between harm and benefit is a paperwork exercise in terms of the sequential test to approve and run it through policy whereas the reality is that people are not being put in Flood Zone 3, they are in Flood Zone 1 plus the properties are out of the ground.

·       Alan Davies made the point that the northern part of the site, which is where the site will be accessed from Barton Road, is in Flood Zone 1 so this is what the Environment Agency would consider to be safe access and there is also the fact that the dwellings are being raised.

·       Councillor Marks stated that whilst he accepts part of Councillor Benney’s argument, he does not accept all of it and it still does not dilute the fact that it is known that there have been flooding issues within that area. He continued that Anglian Water are not in attendance and it has been heard that there is a difference in opinion between officers and Anglian Water whether they could or should have been in attendance, he has read the press and visited the site and he is still of the view that he cannot support it.

·       Councillor Connor made the point that the agent did say the site has not flooded for 67 years which needs to be taken into consideration. Councillor Benney added that is without mitigation.

·       Councillor Imafidon referred to officers mentioning the benefits outweigh the harm but asked in this case to whose detriment, is it not to the detriment of the people who live there already because one of the biggest arguments that he heard is that the people who already live around this site complaining about how it affects their own lives, including the availability of spaces with local doctors. He understands that it is not a planning reason, but should committee not take that into consideration because it harms and not benefits those existing residents. Matthew Leigh responded that the officer’s report deals with this matter, it is an acknowledged point that Fenland struggles to deliver the Section 106 contributions that are required and this scheme will not be providing contributions towards NHS the same as any 100% affordable scheme so while that weighs against the scheme members appear to not give that very much weight as a decision making process because in this instance as well it would only be NHS, there would not be any education shortfall because there is no requirement. He continued that it does weigh against the development, but he would be concerned for the consistency if this was going to be given a lot more weight than it normally does, which would be the most risky part of an appeal if the Council was inconsistent in its decision making.

·       Councillor Imafidon stated that there are highway issues as well, with Barton Road being closed and, whilst it is being said it is not linked, Anglian Water are not present even though they were invited and they have said Barton Road should be open in March 2026 but they have given dates before, and these deadlines have passed. He added that roads such as Magazine Lane and the road by the Secret Garden as it has been raining the verges are so soft and cars were sliding into the ditches and, whilst he knows this is not going to continue forever, there are serious problems around the roads in that area and another possible 60-84 vehicles are going to be added and it needs to be taken into account how it impacts people who already live there and the infrastructure in that area. Councillor Imafidon stated that he will not be supporting this application.

·       Councillor Connor acknowledged the comments of Councillor Imafidon but made the point that this is not a material planning consideration as issues are being spoken about which are nothing to do with this application and carry no weight.

·       Councillor Marks stated in the main he agrees with Councillor Imafidon, previously on this site, although it has not flooded for 67 years, there was a nursery and it has not been a built up area with roadways, etc. He feels the water has to go somewhere and further along the road there is an issue which could be compounded so he cannot support it.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that the road might not be fixed until April next year, but this proposal is not going to be built by then so committee cannot go on what might happen. He referred to the NHS and GPs will be found for a practice for an increase in population within an area, with over 55s already receiving health care treatment and it is up to the health service to move that provision from where they are to where they are going to be but none of this is a planning consideration.

·       Councillor Marks stated his concern is not NHS but that there has been an issue and there could be one going forward, Anglian Water are not present, and people will have mobility issues, like himself, that are going to be placed in a problem area, which has a knock on effect on the emergency services. He added that he has seen flooding first hand at Manea, seen not only the disruption but the distress when people are having to evacuate their houses.

·       Councillor Connor questioned what would be gained by having Anglian Water here? Councillor Benney made the point that Anglian Water and the Lead Local Flood Authority have been present on previous applications saying everything is fine and if they turned up today they would only reiterate what they have stated within their reports.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(All members present declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on this application)

(Councillor Meekins declared that he was not at the previous meeting when this application was considered so took no part in the discussion and voting thereon. He further declared, in accordance with 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)