Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update that had been circulated.

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.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Mrs Shanna Jackson, the Agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the application submitted is for a scheme for up to four dwellings and has been submitted in outline with matters committed in respect of access only. She added that the Parish Council support the application and eight letters of support from residents along Sandbank have also been received.

Mrs Jackson referred members to an application for a single dwelling on the land to the immediate southeast of the site which was also recommended for refusal, however, members considered that the single dwelling would adjoin the built form and was in a growth village and would not constitute ribbon development and the application was approved. She made the point that the application before the committee is the same in many aspects as the plot next door and, in her view, it is in a better position as it would infill the gap between the building plot to the southeast and the remainder of the built form to the northwest along Sandbank.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that given its position between existing buildings it cannot be considered as ribbon development, and she agrees with the views of the Parish Council who have stated that the site is in the village. She made the point that Wisbech St Mary is a growth village where new development is encouraged and under Policy LP3 of the Local Plan it states that development including village extensions are appropriate in such locations and the proposal would provide four new dwellings within the growth village and even if the site was considered to be outside of the existing footprint, Policy LP3 would still allow for such development as it provides for extensions to the built up area and, therefore, the principle of development is supported in policy terms.

Mrs Jackson explained that the further benefit to the application includes the footpath to the front of the site which will link to the footpath which is included as part of the neighbouring plot, and it will provide a safer pedestrian access route for the parents and children of future residents and those that currently walk to the primary school. She made the point that it will also help with the speed reduction of traffic along Sandbank which is something that the Parish Council is working towards.

Mrs Jackson stated that the indicative drawings show that quality homes and spacious plots can be achieved on the site and the proposed finished floor levels will match those of the neighbouring plot to the southeast. She added that the further detail on how this will be accommodated into the building in design terms will be dealt with as part of the reserved matters application.

Mrs Jackson stated that there are no objections which have been received from any of the technical consultees and the scheme has the support of the Parish Council and from the neighbours in the immediate vicinity of the site. She stated that the proposal would bring significant benefits to the area by means of providing housing in a growth village, by providing a footpath link to both existing and future residents to the amenities within the village centre and there is, in her opinion, no conflict with the policies which are set out in the reasons for refusal.

Members asked Mrs Jackson the following questions:

·       Councillor Miscandlon stated that in paragraph 9.16 it makes reference to the existing application which has received planning permission as a grand design for the entrance to the area of the village and he asked Mrs Jackson whether it was her view that the current proposal if approved will diminish that statement? Mrs Jackson stated that in her view it would depend on the interpretation as to what the entrance to the village would be and there is development all the way along Sandbank to the north and to the south and personally she would not have said that the other site was the entrance to the village because the whole area of land would be an infill plot within the wider setting. Councillor Miscandlon stated that the application that was granted by the committee against the officer’s recommendation was to make a grand entrance and, in his opinion, the addition of the proposed dwellings will diminish the grand design entry into the village.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that one of the points raised is that the floor level will have to be at least a metre above the ground level which presumably was a requirement of the previous approval and whilst he appreciates that there are different levels in that particular area and the fact that the land where these are to be built is quite low he would like to know why there is not an issue for one dwelling but is for a few more. David Rowen stated that when the reserved matters application came before the committee in August, the recommendation was to refuse it, due to the overall scale and design of the proposed dwelling and that would be exacerbated by the need to raise the land levels by a metre to make the site safe from flooding as it is in Flood Zone 3. He added that the reason for refusal with the current application relates more to the impact on the overall character of the area by having four houses there again exacerbated by the need to raise the levels up so that potentially you are looking at structures which are quite a way above existing ground level. Councillor Cornwell questioned what the detriment and difference would be with regard to the dwellings built at a higher level? David Rowen explained that the issue with this particular application is the need to look at the relationship with the property immediately to the north of the application site which is at its existing level and the overall concern is that not only is there the introduction of a level of urbanisation within the gap at the edge of the village there is also the exacerbation of the visual impact through the raising of the levels as well.

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

·       Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the view that the only difference between this and the previous application is that one is in Flood Zone 1 and the other is in Flood Zone 3. She added that they have the same reasons for refusal and at the time when members voted to go against the officer’s recommendation for the house, it had been said by some members that there would be a precedent set and if the current proposal is approved it will only be a matter of time before there will be further applications submitted for further dwellings. She made the point that, in her opinion, the officers have made the right recommendation.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he does not agree with Councillor Mrs Davis, he voted in favour for the single dwelling, but a precedent has now been set and if it is refused and it goes to appeal then the Council could incur costs due to the inconsistency of decision making.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she does not think there is inconsistency as the single dwelling had another house opposite it whereas the current proposal is a block of dwellings going into the open countryside and, therefore, she views this differently.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she has referred to the minutes of the meeting in August and the proposal was made by Councillor Sutton and seconded by Councillor Mrs Mayor that the application should be refused, and that proposal failed. She added that a further proposal was made by Councillor Benney and seconded by herself and the application was then granted against the officer’s recommendation with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions in line with the previous consent. Councillor Mrs French added that it also states in the minutes that ‘members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the height difference of 40cm makes no impact’. She stated that it was decided at that time that the proposal was going to be something different and there was no indication at that time that a further application was going to be submitted for a further four dwellings which she is very disappointed to see.

·       Nick Harding clarified to the committee that the site is different, and it is a site next door.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that he can see from the plan that the other application that was approved was in fact opposite the existing development on the other side of the road to this particular plot although it is different it gives the appearance of just being another add on to the same plot and opposite there is simply open countryside and, in his view, officers have made the correct recommendation. He added that if there was the wish to maintain the gap between them all then this is the way for it to be achieved.

·       Nick Harding pointed out that Councillor Mrs French had referred to the minutes of the August Planning Committee meeting and he pointed out that the quote she made was not the site next door and, therefore, the issue of the 40 centimetres was not relevant.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Davis, seconded by Councillor Miscandlon and agreed that the application should be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.