Agenda item

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 to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated. He also advised that a further late representation had been received in objection to the application.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Elena Vandjour in objection to the application.

Ms Vandjour explained that she is a local resident living on Sutton Road, whose property almost backs onto the proposed site. She stated that she has submitted three letters of objection to the proposal and cannot see any reference to her concerns or other resident’s objections in the officer’s report. She added that, in her opinion, this type of back land development is out of character with the existing houses along the Sutton Road.

Ms Vandjour made reference to a planning application F/YR13/0848/O which was refused on appeal in March 2015 on the grounds of the character and also flood risk and also referred to a smaller development which was also refused by the Inspector.  She stated that the proposal before members today is for dwellings to be situated on flood zone 2 and 3 and the proposal includes raising the ground level of up to a metre in height which puts her property at risk of flooding, especially with the threat of rising sea levels in the years to come with the proposed site likely to be underwater for a large part of the year if the flood defences along the River Nene were not in place. 

Ms Vandjour stated that the displacement of flood water adjoining the residential properties is worrying and the Environment Agency have also raised concerns as mentioned in section 5.2 of the report, where it states that ‘if there is a finite volume of water able to pass into a defended area following a failure of the defences, then a new development, by displacing some flood water will increase flood risk to existing properties. We strongly recommend the owners prepare a Flood Warning and Evacuation plan following discussion with Fenland DC emergency planners.’  She commented that she cannot see that a sequential test supplied by the applicant justifies using land in flood zone 2 and 3 where there is allocated land available to the east of Wisbech which is in flood zone 1.

Ms Vandjour added that the report states that currently there is no planning permission in existence for East Wisbech and a much more detailed analysis is required to demonstrate that the East of Wisbech cannot be built on, and in her opinion, this is a serious failure in the overall recommendation. She concluded that the planning officer’s report has not addressed the objections raised by both her and other residents, particularly in relation to flood risk and a flawed sequential test. The recommendation in the report is balanced, but the issues she has raised already lend the application towards refusal. She added that if members are minded to approve then a smaller development should be considered for zone 1, whilst leaving flood zone 2 and 3 for open space or a nature reserve.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Tim Slater, acting on behalf of the Agent in support of the application.

Mr Slater stated that the application was first submitted in March 2017 and any matters identified by the planning officers have been addressed. He stated that, in his opinion, there are significant impediments to the delivery of planned growth in the town due to the physical restraints, predominantly flood risk, financial and viability issues and in the preparation of the application these issues have been addressed with the proposal being a sustainable development in an accessible location delivering much needed housing, including affordable housing provision.

Mr Slater expressed the view that the proposal is policy compliant in relation to its location and design and as there are 249 homes on a non allocated site adjacent to a main town it is compliant with Policy LP4, which enables large sites to come forward as windfall sites in sustainable locations. With regard to flood risk, he feels the proposal is also compliant with 60% of the site being in flood zone 3 and 40% in flood zone 1 and, therefore as it has been identified as being at flood risk a sequential and exception test have been carried out. He made the point that much of the land identified for future housing growth in and around Wisbech is also at risk of flooding and the approach that has been considered with regard to mitigation and design shows one way in which this issue can be addressed, adding that the Environment Agency and the Lead Local Flood Authority have raised no objections to the proposal.

Mr Slater stated that with regard to section 106 contributions, the proposal is consistent with Policy LP5 with the viability exercise concluding that the site is not viable, however, the applicant is an independent developer and has experience of building in Wisbech and can work with different parameters in terms of profit margins and contingencies and is able to make an offer of 10.4% of affordable housing as well as financial contributions of £500,000 to education and £82,000 to the NHS. He stated that from discussions with officers, the delivery of 24 affordable houses is significant and the applicant is in discussions with Rent Plus. The site is acceptable as detailed within the officer’s report and it will also deliver a number of highway and connectivity improvements as part of the off-site highway package and it hoped that the development will show that good quality housing can be delivered in Wisbech.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Laws expressed the opinion that the report is very extensive and informative; however she stated that she has never seen a tunnel of that length for badgers or wildlife and questioned whether it would not be more cost effective to relocate the badgers? Mr Slater stated that there are protected animals on the site, a design exercise has taken place to mitigate the issue and the proposal has been reviewed by the Councils Wildlife Officer who has deemed the tunnel as an appropriate solution. Other options were considered, such as relocation, but the advice received was that the tunnel was the most appropriate solution.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that when the application was in its infancy, there was an offer of enhancement to the village and asked whether the financial contribution was still a consideration. Mr Slater stated that his client had historically made an offer to carry out upgrade works to Leverington Parish Hall via the Hall Committee, he has decided he will still agree to honour that offer though it would be done outside of the Section 106. The applicant came forward to the public seating area with the agreement of the Chairman to address the committee. Stephen Turnbull, the Legal Officer stated that if the proposed donation does not fall within the scope of the Section 106, it is not a matter which members should take into account when determining the application. The applicant stated that the Parish Hall Chairman along with architects, have drawn up a schedule of works along with improvements they would like and he has agreed and signed to say that he will honour those works.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked for clarity with regard to the Internal Drainage Boards concerns. David Rowen stated that they have expressed reservations about the surface water disposal methods, however, the LLFA who are the statutory consultee are satisfied with the proposal.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that he has reservations around the issue of development of this scale in flood zone 2 and 3.

·         Nick Harding clarified that the legal advice that had been sought was to ascertain whether the areas identified in the Fenland Local Plan for housing, could have automatically passed the sequential test as they are areas of ‘search for development’ and not definite site allocations. The advice was that they could not be given priority on sequential test grounds as they were not allocations, even though we went through a sequential test process in order to identify it, (West Wisbech), in the Local Plan. He added that officers are aware that the site is right beside the river. The Environment Agency have indicated that they did have a slight concern over the potential impact arising as a consequence of the failure of the defences in close proximity of the site and if the amount of water that comes through is relatively limited in volume. Officers have, therefore, evaluated what the chances are of the defences failing, (there is no evidence to prove the likelihood of them failing compared with anywhere else) and what is the likelihood of that failure resulting in a limited amount of water coming through into the site and onto the adjacent land. He added that as there is no information available of the likelihood of either of those events, it would be difficult to recommend refusal of the application on those grounds.

·         Councillor Hay expressed the view that she has concerns over the flood defences and also the concerns raised by North Level Internal Drainage Board who state that the ground is not capable of the infiltration and the Emergency Planning Officer who has stated that a flood evacuation plan is required. Councillor Mrs Laws stated that in Whittlesey there was a similar issue and the Environment Agency recommended that a flood evacuation plan needed to be drawn up and Whittlesey Town Council and the Emergency Planning Officer at Fenland District Council worked together and there are now 20 flood wardens. The flood alert system is very good and the Environment Agency is very supportive and informative.

·         Councillor Sutton asked whether the proposal has any effect on the works being carried out by Royal Haskoning with regard to the Wisbech Garden Town Project and the relief drain which is proposed. Nick Harding stated that the flood risk work being undertaken with regard to the Wisbech Garden Town proposal is in its early stages still and not identified in any plan or policy and because of this it would be unreasonable to refuse planning permission. H added that the Garden Town project has still to undertake testing to see whether it is a viable development proposal and is at its very earliest of stages. The location has yet to be determined as to whether it is a sequentially preferable location for development, however, currently the Environment Agency has not signed up to any specification for a flood risk assessment in relation to the development and a site specific flood risk assessment which has been prepared in accordance with national specifications has not been completed yet and, therefore, the application before members today could not be said to be harmful to the Garden Town project.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws commented that there have been investigations and studies carried out, the principle authorities surrounding water and flooding are engaged with the authority and are having conversations and are aware of planning applications.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Laws, seconded by Councillor Murphy and decided that the application be APPROVED, as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Cllr Sam Clark registered in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she has been lobbied on this application)

(The Chairman registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that all Members of the Planning Committee had received an email from Rent Plus with regard to this application)