Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that the officer’s report states that the principle of residential development of the site is acceptable subject to other details and added that the site history within the officer’s report shows a previous refusal on the site in 1987, and the other application site referred to in the history is on the other side of the road and was 16 years ago and, therefore, since 1987 there have been no other refusals or applications on the site. He explained that within the officer’s report it states that there have been two applications withdrawn at the site, with one of those being due to biodiversity, and  he has commissioned an ecology report which was by a different company, however, that company did not respond to any of the questions and has now ceased trading.

Mr Hall explained that a second ecology report has been submitted and when reviewing the comments from the County Council’s Ecology Department, they have recommended conditions, which he has spoken to the applicant regarding these, and he is happy to agree to those and they can be accommodated on the site. He referred to the presentation screen and he highlighted the red line which identifies the site, explaining that directly to the north of the site within the last two years there has been a planning in principle application for up to nine dwellings which has been approved but has not yet been built out and it is clear to see that it is clearly in the built-up form of Wisbech.

Mr Hall stated that the application has the support of Wisbech Town Council, is sited within Flood Zone 1 and the Highway Authority have made no objection to the proposal, with the entrance to the site being tarmacked which will benefit not only the site but also other users of the site as there are two further dwellings beyond this site off the access along with a former nursery. He explained that he also proposes to widen the access in front of the site to a width of 5.5 metres which would then provide a passing place which would benefit the site along with the other users of the access.

Mr Hall referred to the photos and highlighted that the car shown in the photographs should not be parked there and the access according to Land Registry is for the full width and the trees shown in the first photo all form part of the access which is approximately 6 metres wide although it does narrow down as David Rowen explained.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked whether some of the trees are going to be removed as he has stated that the access is going to be 6 metres wide? Mr Hall stated that when looking at the first photo shown on the presentation screen, the car parked to one side is parked on the access and it should not be. He added that the trees on the right-hand side are within the access according to Land Registry records and, therefore, they would need to be removed.

·         Councillor Marks made reference to the Google map, where it looks as though the red line goes straight through the property by the road. Mr Hall explained that is the boundary of the property and the thin line shown is grassland which is just below the red line. Councillor Marks asked whether the garage shown in one of the slides is being removed? Mr Hall explained that it is not as it is further round the corner.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that the officer’s report refers to a 90-degree bend asking whether there is anyway the visibility can be improved? He stated that it would appear that on bin collection day it would mean that the residents are going to have to wheel out their bins at a distance of 60 metres for collection and he questioned the access as it is very overgrown. Mr Hall stated that he is currently trying to improve the access where it abuts Stow Road and also further round in land which is in the applicant’s ownership. He added that the 90-degree bend has been in existence for many years and that cannot be improved and the two other properties along with the nursery which are around the corner have a collection from a smaller bin lorry although he is not certain on that but should that not be the case then the residents would need to wheel their bins out to the top.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that although the bend may have been there, the property has not and he has never seen a smaller bin lorry accessing the track. Mr Hall stated that he cannot confirm the bin lorry collection arrangements.

·         Councillor Benney asked whether the residents would be prepared to arrange a private bin collection to collect their waste? Mr Hall confirmed that they would be in agreement to that.

·         Councillor Marks asked how a car would be able to turn around in the site? Mr Hall explained that the site layout is indicative, and he added that the parking point can be altered on the indicative plan although he stated that it is tight, but it can be widened.

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

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view that it is a very narrow site, and he does have concerns with the proposal. He added that with regards to biodiversity, there could be some cutting back of the weeds which are overgrown, and, in his view, it is not the nicest of sites. Councillor Marks made the point that access is a big concern and residents will have to pull their bins for 60 metres which they will be aware of when they purchase a property, or they can introduce a private bin company for their collections. He expressed the opinion that it is a very tight site, however, the buyer will be aware.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the proposal is an outline application, and the design of the bungalow is just indicative so the turning space could be improved in the reserved matters application or full application. He added that there is improvement to the site as if the trees are removed then there will be a passing place introduced and the concerns regarding bin collection can be overcome by the introduction of a private collector. Councillor Benney made the point that with regards to the outlook at the site not being very good that is down to whoever buys the property. He expressed the view that he does not see much wrong with the proposal and whilst the access maybe tight, there have been other applications approved previously where the access points have been tight. Councillor Benney stated that he does not think that there are going to be large volumes of traffic using the track and he does not anticipate that there will be any speeding either.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that the access does seem to be very tight and previously the committee have allowed applicants to make improvements to the access and to remain consistent could this not be considered with this proposal.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the Mr Hall has also advised the committee that he is looking at the access point by removing some or all of the trees and including the removal of the car.

·         David Rowen stated that the agent is looking to make improvements to the access at the junction with Stow Road which is acknowledged in the report and also by the highway comments, however, it is the part between Stow Road and the application site, the 90-degree blind bend and the 2.5 metre access track which is essentially an unmade carriage way. He made the point that, with regards to buyer beware, the aims of the planning system are to create high quality living environments for people and if members feel that a property accessed via a track with a 60 metre drag distance for their bins with a limited outlook, light ingress is seen as a high quality living environment then it is within the gift of members to go against the officer’s recommendation.

·         David Rowen referred to the comment made by Councillor Benney with regards to the introduction of a private bin collection being conditioned and he explained that it is not something that can be stipulated. He stated that the condition that could be added would be that the details of a refuse collection strategy are to be agreed which would then be down to the applicant to consider.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the 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 the agent has stated that the access is going to be improved, it is not down to the committee to consider what a potential residents outlook will be, once completed it will be a positive contribution to the street scene and there is still a large amount of ecology on the site as there are fields and land around it and the loss of the ecology on the site is outweighed by the benefit of the dwelling.

(Councillor Benney declared that he knows the agent for this application, he has undertaken work for him, but he is not pre-determined and will approach the application with an open mind)