Agenda item

To determine the application.

The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers) during its deliberations.

Alison Callaby presented the report and update to Members.

Members received a presentation in objection of the application in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Parish Councillor Alexandra Patrick.

Councillor Patrick explained that she is speaking on behalf of Wisbech St Mary Parish Council, who object to the application on the grounds that the design is inappropriate for the village. Whilst they are not opposed to development, they do not feel blocks of flats are suitable for a village. The village currently has a mix of bungalows and houses and the design proposal will encompass some overlooking. Members of the Parish have questioned the absence of a Section 106 Agreement and are concerned that for such a large scale development there would need to be some type of management in terms of the open space area as it would place an added strain onto the Parish Council if they had to be responsible for it.

Members received a presentation in objection of the application in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Councillor Gavin Booth.

Councillor Booth gave apologies on behalf of Councillor Sarah Bligh who had also wished to speak on this application.

Councillor Booth stated his strong objection to the application and stated that with regard to point 10.1 in the Officers report it states the proposal is for 26 units where it is actually 76 units and this is a large development on the perimeter of Wisbech St Mary. The 76 properties exceed the development threshold on its own for Wisbech St Mary. Developments of this size in villages cannot be seen to be modest particularly when the local plan states should happen for the growth of villages. Councillor Booth commented that in 10.2 of the Officers report where it refers to sustainability, the previous application was on balance agreed on the basis of Section 106 contributions, however, this application cannot provide that and it is actually increasing the intensity of buildings on this site in the open countryside and if the previous application was on balance how can this application in front of committee today without a Section 106 be put forward. Councillor Booth stated that under 10.5 of the Officers report it refers to a Community Consultation exercise and on an application of this size it would be expected that a consultation would have taken place and this has not happened and Councillor Booth would like to know why. Councillor Booth stated that he believes the Developer has taken the decision that they would not get community support for this application due to the size and the objections raised at the previous application. Councillor Booth commented that with regard to the petition that was mentioned, many of the villagers that he has spoken to in the village have signed it believing it covers the subject of flooding and is also against the development.

The Parish Council have voiced their objections today and Councillor Booth highlighted that with regard to Policy LP12 (2) it states that if there is no community consultation ‘, the Parish Council have said they strongly object to this and therefore the application does not meet that policy. The policy states that the appeal cannot just take that policy on its own as an objection but there are other considerations that need to be discussed. Councillor Booth commented that within point 10.14, it states there will be no loss of amenity to neighbouring properties; however, he believes this comment is that of Officers, as there will be a loss of amenity when there will be an access way with hundreds of vehicle movements within 2 metres of the boundary. Councillor Booth states in 10.16 it refers to highways and the proposed development as being in a 30mph zone, however this is incorrect as the area is in a 40 mph zone. The Parish Council have a minor highways bid in place, but is more for reducing speed around the school and shops. There have been discussions around flooding and a point has been made concerning some of the improvements made, however these haven’t been tested and the Committee should be aware that part of the development is in flood zone 3 and there is very little mention of the sequential test in the report. Councillor Booth pointed out that in 10.32 it mentions the play area and Councillor Murphy has already raised the issue surrounding the management of play areas in the future. In section 10.34 where it refers to Section 106 Agreements there will be extra pressure put onto local services as a result of the development as it is not viable and the approach adopted by Officers and all the objections and reasons against this application need to be considered and he recommends the application be refused or at least for it to be deferred to allow a proper community consultation exercise to be carried out.

Members received a presentation in support of the application in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Steven Mitchell, the Agent.

Mr Mitchell stated that the development has increased from the previous approval to encompass more affordable homes. In addition land has been gifted to the North Level Internal Drainage Board which has enabled them to upgrade and take control of the drainage ditch on the east of the site. Mr Mitchell stated that they are investing in public open space with a play area for this development that will benefit not just the estate but the wider village as a whole. Mr Mitchell confirmed that they will be managing and maintaining the area at no cost to either the Parish or District Council. The Parish Council were contacted twice in order to enable the scheme to be presented to the Parish Council but no response was received. Access was approved during the previous approval and there are homes being built on flood zone 3.

Members asked the following questions of Mr Mitchell.

1.    Councillor Mrs Laws asked Mr Mitchell with regard to LP12, which is concerning public consultation that apart from approaching the Parish Council, did the developer deliver letters to local residents or to hold an exhibition in the village hall? Mr Mitchell confirmed that he had made contact via email twice to the Parish Council, but on both occasions the email did not meet with a response.

2.    Councillor Mrs Laws commented that there is a difference between approaching the Parish Council to actually discussing the application or for the developer to distribute letters to local residents to make them aware. Mr Mitchell clarified that they did not distribute letters but did contact the Parish Council to make arrangements to carry out a presentation.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Hay commented that she has seen the viability study and stated that the earlier application was approved, because the development would result in benefits to the sustainability of the area through the Section 106 contributions that were agreed at that point in time. With this application before Members now the development has grown by 50%, it is no longer viable, and therefore, in her opinion it does not offset the benefits and the disadvantage of encroaching into open countryside.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws agreed with Councillor Mrs Hay and on balance that is why the application was pursued. Councillor Mrs Laws stated she is not happy with regard to the public consultation but also the design of the development with regard to flats there is nothing else in the area similar to the proposal and whilst she appreciates that different accommodation needs to be offered, she questions the compatibility of the design as well.

·         Councillor Sutton commented that, whilst he appreciates what the other Members have already said, to not support this application in his opinion would be wrong, as it already has outline permission for 50 properties and he knows that Officers will ensure that each property has the correct amenity space according to policy and, therefore, if the developer is able to increase the amount of properties on the site and it complies with policy then there is no issue.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that with regard to flats in villages, just because there are currently no flats in villages it does not mean that in the future there cannot be any flats in villages. Flats will be much cheaper for younger persons to purchase and continue to live in villages where at the moment they cannot. Councillor Sutton confirmed he is not referring to social housing he is referring to affordable housing. There are people in villages that would be able to buy as a first time buyer a flat that would not be able to purchase a 2 or 3 bedroomed house. They are not large tower blocks and he will support the application because if they don’t the application will come forward again in the future and somebody will challenge the 5 year land supply.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked Officers to confirm whether they were happy with the sequential test. Alison Callaby clarified that the development sits within the flood zone 1 and the agent has confirmed no development will take place on flood zone 3.

·         Councillor Sutton commented that he remembers when this application was discussed previously that it would have been ideal to have the access in the corner where there was a bungalow and on the site visit it was clear to see the land went down in the back corner and the comment was made at the time that no development could take place in flood zone 3.

·         The Chairman commented that he also recalls from the last time when this application was brought forward for the reduced houses in the top right hand corner, there was also a footpath that the children could use for access to the school, this seems to have disappeared. Whether this could be resurrected to stop the children having to walk along the high street to the school.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that as he recalls the agent at the time said they would be happy to talk to the adjacent land owner and if permission was given they would be willing to put that in, however this looks as though it has not worked.

·         Councillor Sutton asked whether there was a time frame for the section 106. David Rowen stated that it was not on the recommendation in font of Members; however as per the previous item it will be added.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Newell the application be APPROVED, which was not supported by a majority on vote by members

The Chairman stated that he now required a second proposal and the reasons for the proposal.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that she cannot support the application purely on viability grounds as she cannot see what the application is offering the village and policy wise she is struggling. On principal the application should probably be approved, however applications are looked at frequently and promises are made with regard to 106 agreements and Councillor Mrs Laws commented that she expected the Section 106 Officer to be present today.

(It was pointed out to Councillor Mrs Laws that the Section 106 Officer was present)

The Chairman stated again that if a proposal for refusal was to be made then there needed to be defendable reasons to support it.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that with a heavy heart she would not be putting forward a proposal for refusal as she cannot think of a policy reason for such a decision. Councillor Mrs Laws stated she is so unhappy that the application offers nothing apart from housing.

·         Mr Nick Harding said that if the Committee are minded to refuse the application as has been indicated, Members need to evidence the harm that would arise as a consequence of allowing this development to go ahead. As was mentioned through the debate the previous approved scheme brought with it a range of benefits through a Section 106 Agreement and this latest scheme does not do so to the same extent. The Committee needs to bear in mind that clear advice from the Government on these matters states that when considering whether to grant planning permission, you have to have regard to viability of the scheme. If the Developer can satisfactorily demonstrate the scheme is not viable when making policy compliant levels of contributions, then planning permission should still be granted, unless it can be demonstrated that significant harm will arise. Therefore, if permission is granted for this scheme can Members identify where the significant issues would be in terms of not providing for a policy compliant S106 agreement?

·         Councillor Mrs Laws commented that when the application was brought before Committee previously the balance for the Committee was to approve it because of what it was offering and now it is not.

·         Councillor Mrs Hay commented that if this application had come before the Committee today without the earlier application for 50 houses that was granted and it was granted only because of the extra benefits from the Section 106, it would have been rejected due to encroachment onto open countryside and it does encroach without any benefits to offset.

·         Councillor Benney commented that the development is 50% bigger than the previous application and to inflict this onto a small village would be detrimental.

·         Councillor Sutton commented that open countryside has been mentioned by Members and if we are never going to build in open countryside then there will never be any building taking place. All the broad concept areas are open countryside and if as a committee nothing is approved due to the reason of it being in open countryside then as an Authority we will fail.

·         Councillor Sutton commented that to refuse the application would steer the Council into a dangerous position. Councillor Sutton reminded Members of the Manea Application where Members considered the Community Consultation and quoted the Local Plan when that application was refused, which in turn went to Appeal and the Authority lost resulting in costs to the Council.

·         Mr Nick Harding  asked the Committee to be mindful of a previous application which had  11 dwellings on part of the site. This did encroach into the countryside beyond the existing village limit but not as much as  the current application. in terms of the 2015 application, the Officer recommendation was on the basis that although the development would result in some intrusion into the open countryside the impact was outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that she was unable to put forward a proposal to refuse the application as she has no substantive reason to support this. However she would like it publically recorded how much this decision displeases her.

·         The Chairman stated that as there was not a proposal before the Committee for the refusal of the application, there was the need to reconsider the officer recommendation and was looking for a proposal.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Newell and decided that the application be APPROVED as per the Officer’s recommendation.