Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 9 January, 2019.

The minutes of the meeting of 9 January 2019 were confirmed and signed.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item P60/18

This item was withdrawn.

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 that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Gareth Edwards, the Agent.

Mr Edwards explained that this area of Wisbech St Mary has seen a number of new developments erected, with the Parish Council having recommended approval for the proposal and have recently installed a length of footpath. He stated that it is hoped that over a period of time this will be added to, in order to provide a footway link to the remainder of the village and by adding more dwellings in the proposed location it will give more reason for the footpath to be further extended.

Mr Edwards stated that Cambridgeshire Highways have requested that a new footpath should be added along Rat Row to link with the current High Road footpath, which will provide a safe route for residents to access the bus stop at the front of the site. He stated that whilst he acknowledges that the site is within flood zone 3 on the Environment Agency maps, they have previously stated that the maps can prove to be misleading. He added that as maps provide modelling of the maximum values of flood depths, velocity and hazard rating, he has provided up to date maps of both the flood risk assessment and also in the sequential and exception test study which shows that the proposed site is unaffected by flood water in the year 2115 in both the 1 in 200 and 1 in 1000 and as this is the most up to date data, in his opinion, it should be within flood zone 1.

Mr Edwards expressed the view that the only site that was currently available was a site for three dwellings which currently has an old dwelling on it which is going to be utilised and the garden used for the three proposed dwellings which as stated within the exception test, are to achieve an A rated energy performance and he would be happy to accept a condition on this. He added that local developers provide local tradesman and due to larger sites and allocations they would not be able to purchase sites like this due to purchase prices and infrastructure costs.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that when you read the details of this application it states that the Environment Agency and the Internal Drainage Board have no objection but  they will need to have formal land drainage consent and that will be required to form the proposed new access. She added that it was a very interesting site visit and on the visit all that could be seen is new dwellings as the site is overgrown and needs attention and  ...  view the full minutes text for item P62/18

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 members attention to the update report.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Councillor Mrs French in support of the application.

Councillor Mrs French explained that March Town Hall was purchased in 2001/2 by the late Councillor Peter Skoulding, it was then given to the Town of March and since this time the Civic Trust has been formed with the trust gaining a grant from the National Lottery fund of over £1,000,000. She stated In the past the building was used as a Magistrates Court for nine years and was in a bad state of repair and in 2005 the Town Hall re opened and has been used over the past 14 years for many activities, however the windows have deteriorated and when the restoration of the building took place, the windows were not replaced as they proved to be too costly.

Councillor Mrs French added that when the restoration took place the application allowed for the installation of metal double glazed windows. She made the point that March Town Council supports this application and that a precedent has already been set with the previous application in 2003 being approved, she cannot understand why this application is being recommended for refusal today. She expressed the view that the new double glazed windows are for the upstairs room which is used for many purposes including the Town Council which is currently cold, draughty and noisy and the double glazing will address these issues and it is hoped that the Civic Trust can obtain an energy rating certificate and save heating costs if the windows are installed.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Matthew Hall, the Agent.

Mr Hall pointed out that directly below some of the first floor windows to be replaced, there are already double glazed aluminium doors and windows, which were approved in 2003. He stated that where the shop front is located, which is double glazed, is on the most prominent elevation of the building facing the market square and the windows that are to be replaced are not the original fabric of the building, they were replaced in the 1970’s with the proposal maintaining the oak surrounds because that is the original material and they are in a reasonable condition.

Mr Hall expressed the view that there are at least 26 other local authorities who have approved the use of slim line double glazed units within Grade 1 and Grade 2 listed buildings in this country with the slim line windows having been specifically designed for the use in listed buildings and are single glazed units which aim to be energy efficient. He added that the manufacturer has confirmed that they are 4mm thick glass panes with a gap  ...  view the full minutes text for item P63/18