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.

David Rowen presented the report and update report to Members.

Members received a presentation as an objector to the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Councillor Sam Hoy.

Councillor Hoy explained that she is speaking as an objector as there is some background to the application which she outlined. She stated that in principle she has no objection to the development, it is in the local plan. Councillor Hoy commented that when she read the report, her main concern was and remains, how the development ties in with the Wisbech Access project and she felt the information provided was not necessarily correct as it stated that there was no date set for Wisbech Access works, when in fact the date of March 2021 had been put forward as the date of completion by Fenland District Council’s Cabinet, the Combined Authority and the County Council. Councillor Hoy commented that if Members were minded to grant permission the Developer could decide to start the access works themselves immediately and then in some 18 months’ time, the Wisbech Access Study will commence and undo the works the Developer has already undertaken. This will be a waste of money and disruptive for the local residents.

Councillor Hoy commented that she has had various conversations with the Head of Planning and the Agent and thanked them for the help they have given. The update provided today does alleviate some of her concerns; and she does appreciate that applications need to be dealt with as they are submitted. The clause with regard to the monies is really important and she is pleased to see it included. One of the issues still to receive clarification is with regard to the financial contribution for the Ramnoth Road roundabout junction as originally it was a medium strategy for the Access Study and when it went before the Combined Authority and Cabinet it got brought forward and Councillor Hoy asked whether this is because they are relying on a contribution from the Developer or because monies have been found elsewhere. Councillor Hoy commented that the clause outlines this issue and if the finances are needed for the Wisbech Access Study, the Developer’s money could then be used and if they were not reliant on it the money could go towards other aspects such as affordable housing or items for the local community.

Members asked Councillor Hoy the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked Councillor Hoy to confirm which aspect she required clarification on. Councillor Hoy stated it is clarification on who is financing the Wisbech Access Strategy. The study has three stages and in the middle stage the roundabout had been mentioned. When the Combined Authority became involved, the roundabout was moved forward. Councillor Hoy stated that the Agent has pointed out that it is not dependent on the funding. Councillor Hoy stated that originally today she was going to request a deferment, however the Agent and Developer have been very good with understanding the concerns raised.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Matt Hare the Agent.

Mr Hare explained the application before Members today is for 137 dwellings. The scheme does not include any affordable housing. The application was first submitted in September 2016, following extensive discussion with Planning Officers and a public exhibition in the town.

The application was made following a previous resolution by Planning Committee to approve outline planning permission and the previous proposal was for a scheme of a greater density than the proposal before Members today. The site comprises of previously developed land and was formerly the site of the College of West Anglia. The principal of the residential development on the site is supported by the Councils development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, which seek to approve use of brownfield land. The scheme proposes a mix of residential units, including 1 bedroom units, 2 bedroom houses and 3 bedroom houses, including some bungalows. The design and layout of the development has been carefully considered and the layout has been designed in order to facilitate the delivery of a safe and secure neighbourhood. The dwelling design is bespoke and has been produced by a firm of quality architects and the proposed houses will be unique in appearance. During the application process a number of points have been raised by consultees and local residents, as initially there had been a proposal to provide a pedestrian pathway from the site to Falklands Drive, however there were many objections from the residents and therefore the Applicant removed this from the proposal. Concerns were also raised by the Kings Lynn Internal Drainage Board (KLIDB) with regard to the surface water aspect and those concerns facilitated a total redesign of the drainage strategy and this is now acceptable to the Kings Lynn Internal Drainage Board and the Lead Local Flood Authority.

With regard to the relationship between the proposed development and the Wisbech Access Strategy, Members will have seen that the new access forms part of the development proposal and this comprises of the realignment of the junction of Ramnoth Road and Elm High Road and the provision of a new signalised junction. The proposed access has been subject to a stage 1 road safety audit and has been judged to be acceptable. The Wisbech Access Strategy includes a new roundabout to replace the existing signalised junction. The site access will not impact the formation of the new roundabout, however concerns have been raised for the impact of the disturbance to have two sets of roadworks in sequence and therefore the applicants have agreed should permission be granted they would prefer the implementation of the site access works in order to allow the access strategy works to commence and should that occur then the money that would have otherwise been spent on the proposed site access would be given to the Council and that could either be spent on the Wisbech Access Strategy or for some other form of public benefit.

Members asked Mr Hare the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked with regard to the attenuation pond on site whether this would be a ‘step out’ pond, should anybody fall in and whether some consideration could be given to electrical points for electric cars.

·         Mr Hare confirmed with regard to the drainage pond and the safety aspect surrounding it, a plan was submitted with the application which shows a cross section of the pond and has a shallow edging walk out on one side and a balustrade on the other side.With respect to electrical points for car charging, it is something that is feasible to deliver and it is something that could be conditioned

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

·         Councillor Murphy commented that he had no objection at all to the planning application, it contains a reasonable mix of properties and the new road layout could improve the whole area, however he added that if there is any play area or open space included in the development then there should be a Management Company set up for the maintenance and upkeep of it so that the Local Authority does not need to be responsible for it in the future.

·         David Rowen commented that one of the clauses in the Section 106 Agreement would be to secure the provision of the open space and as part of that management and maintenance would be included as a clause in the section 106 agreement.

·         Councillor Mrs Hay commented that with regard to the Section 106, viability issues are due to abnormal costs and asked for clarification as to what the costs are.

·         David Rowen commented that the assessment of the viability appraisal was carried out by the Section 106 Officer, however by looking at the nature of the site which was previously developed, there will an element of site clearance works and there will be costs incurred as part of the access works.

·         Councillor Mrs Hay commented that because of the Wisbech Access Study it has been mentioned that there will be no building works allowed before January 1, 2020, however Councillor Hoy mentioned that the Wisbech Access Study and the roundabout is not likely to be completed before March 2021, where will the access be for the site if it is completed before that date.

·         Mr Nick Harding commented that Members need to be aware that they cannot refuse Planning Permission for this development on the grounds that there maybe duplication of highways works dependent on whether the development comes before the access study roundabout or afterwards. If the Developer wants to build their scheme before the  Wisbech Access Study roundabout is constructed they are perfectly entitled to do so. There is no conflict between their access scheme to serve their development and the Access Study roundabout scheme. Yes it would mean two sets of road works and the undoing of some of the works done by the developer to access their site but planning permission could not be reasonably be withheld for this reason.  Planning Officers have worked with the Developer and the Developer has an interest in the other proposed highways works and the avoidance of the ‘double doing’ and incurring unnecessary costs. Members must be mindful that if this particular road junction is not progressed properly the Developer still needs to be able to proceed and progress their scheme should they so wish. If Committee are inclined to approve the application as recommended in the revised proposal then the Planning Officers can report back to the County Council, so that when the detailed programme of implementation for various schemes within Wisbech in the first stage of works is considered for pulling forward early in that implementation programme.

·         Councillor Sutton commented that he has no problem with the application, however there is no timeline for the Section 106 Agreement and there is normally a 4 month period stipulated. David Rowen responded that this appears to be an oversight and a timeline can be added. Councillor Sutton responded that it is always prudent to add a timeline and four months with an element of discretion would be a good idea.  The Chairman agreed with Councillor Sutton, a timeline has been factored into applications in the past which Officers will be mindful of.

·         Mr Nick Harding clarified the points raised by Members during their discussions before the item was determined. The items highlighted were the revised recommendation from David Rowen, the four month timeline for the signing of the Section 106 Agreement and the requested provision within the Section 106 so that the Council did not adopt any of the open space or play areas.

·         The Chairman asked Members whether they were all happy with those amendments and also added the request by Councillor Mrs Laws for electrical charging points for electric cars, but not to be included in the Section 106 Agreement.

·         Mr Nick Harding added that with regard to the potential condition with regard to car charging points, the applicant might be willing to accept such a condition but the District Council does not have a policy which requires electrical charging points for vehicles to be provided, if a planning application was submitted to delete that condition the Authority would struggle to justify the refusal of that application as there is no policy in place for car electrical points.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Mrs Laws, and decided that the application be APPROVED as per the Officer’s recommendation, with the modifications as outlined by Mr Nick Harding.

(Councillor Sutton advised the Committee that as he was portfolio holder at the time he attended an open meeting at the Boathouse in relation to this application.)