Agenda and minutes

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Mr Hawes the applicant.

Mr Hawes explained that the two shops at the front are small one-room premises on a narrow one-way street which is usually congested with parked cars and that number 5 last traded as a jewellers and number 6 is let on a 10 year lease to a hairdresser. He expressed the view that Norfolk Street no longer lends itself to retail activities requiring large stock holdings and therefore various storage buildings at the rear of properties have become unused and have deteriorated over time. Mr Hawes advised that pre-application advice was sought with this application using the same drawings as had gained a favourable response during that process and the application provides for a significant upgrade to the amenity space used by the hairdresser. He stated that currently the only access to properties at the rear of 5/6 is through a covered passageway approximately 750mm wide which already provides access to residential units above the shops and that the storage buildings come with a right of access along the same passageway but were they to be brought back into commercial use this could in his view create significant disruption to existing residents, particularly as parking issues would encourage deliveries at anti-social times. Mr Hawes stated that there is a small courtyard/amenity space at the rear of 5 available for the use of all residents but its use is compromised by the poor state of the buildings behind 6 which are insecure and attract vermin, However by converting the buildings behind 6 into one 2 bed unit, reduced from the 2 units agreed in principle during the pre-application process those issues, in his opinion are addressed. Mr Hawes stated that the current national and local policy is that no car parking is required for town centre developments and these units are sized to cater for a demographic unlikely to be car owners. He expressed the view that Wisbech is well served by publictransport and added that by reorienting the barn to allow access from Orange Grove reduces the footfall from Norfolk Street, thus providing an enhanced environment for the remaining residents. Access to the barn will now be either direct from a private car park or via an existing communal staircase at 9 Orange Grove which will mean that the design is able to offer better accommodation than if a stairwell had to be incorporated into the barn. Mr Hawes added that 9 Orange Grove is a recently updated block, which benefits from a communal fire alarm to which the new flats will be linked and refuse provision for these units will be accommodated on the car park, further reducing issues created by properties gaining access from Norfolk Street. He explained that discussions were held before and during the application process with the Conservation Officer for the Council and she has no  ...  view the full minutes text for item P26/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that he knows the site well and can understand the reason for the car park but questioned whether officers are aware as to how many trains actually stop at the station each day as he wants to relate that to the number of car parking spaces that are being provided. David Rowen stated that he did not have that information and that would be a question to ask the project team behind the application rather than the Planning Officers. Councillor Cornwell added that he is aware that there has been a recent reduction in the number of trains stopping at Manea and he is keen to ensure that 112 spaces are enough to cater for the use of the station. David Rowen stated that as Planning Officers and putting aside that it is a Fenland District Council application, they would assume that the rationale behind the application has been considered and what has been applied for is sufficient to meet the purposes of the principles of development.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that with regard to the train service query that Councillor Cornwell raised, but it is supposed to be one train an hour. She added that Mayor James Palmer is currently in discussions with the Ministry of Transport to try and get a solution by the 21 September so that trains do stop once an hour at Whittlesey, March and Manea. She added that it is her understanding that it is to help the people of Manea to use public transport rather than drive and they are looking at the future use of the railway not what it happening at the present time.

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he welcomes the proposal as it will be a big benefit to the residents of Manea, but also to the surrounding villages that currently travel to other stations. He added hopefully the hourly train service will be re-introduced and if it removes vehicles off off the road it will be a good thing.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and agreed that that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Mrs Mayor declared an interest, by virtue of the fact that she has been a member of the Hereward Community Rail Partnership when discussions concerning the Manea Station Car Park took place and, therefore, took no part in the discussions or voting on this item)

(Councillor Marks declared an interest, by virtue of the fact that  he is a member of the Manea Rail Board, and he left the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillors Benney and Murphy left the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon due to possible involvement in previous discussions on this item as Cabinet members)

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in objection to the application, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Councillor Sam Hoy, a District Councillor.

Councillor Hoy stated that she is not against the development but has concerns with the variations to the scheme to the northern part of the site, which is adjacent to Falklands Drive and comprises bungalows. She stated that her concern, and that of some of the residents in Falkland Drive, is that the variation to the proposal now includes two storey dwellings which will overlook the bungalows resulting in a loss of privacy and  the residents did not object originally as the proposal only included bungalows against their boundaries, but now the variation which includes the provision of 100% affordable homes appears to have been changed.

.

Councillor Hoy added that officers have also stated that the variation will lead to overlooking and in her opinion that there is no reason that the developer could not have left bungalows in the northern part of the site as bungalows are required in Wisbech and in her view that the two storey dwellings could have been placed to the front of the site, or in the northern part of the boundary of the site, as it appears that only 3 or 4 properties would be impacted. She reiterated that she has no problem with the proposal apart from her concerns with the new layout and she requested that the committee refuse the application on the basis of overlooking and ask the developer to review the plans in consultation with local residents to make the few small changes that are required to make the proposal satisfactory.

Members asked Councillor Hoy the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that Wisbech Town Council have offered no objections to the proposal and asked Councillor Hoy whether she had taken part in their discussions regarding the application? Councillor Hoy stated that she does not sit on the Town Council’s Planning Committee and she  believes that the Town Council may not have understood what the variations actually were when they were first submitted, as the information on the District Council’s website was not clear.

·         Councillor Sutton asked Councillor Hoy if she could advise him under what policy the committee could refuse the application, given that the separation distances in the proposal are exceeded by 2 metres in most places and under the national policy the distance allowed is 21 to 22 metres? Councillor Hoy stated that it is down to the Planning Committee members to make decisions dependent on policies. She made the point that she is only speak on behalf of the residents who do not wish to be overlooked and by making a few small changes to the proposal the concerns of the residents could be overcome.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Jake Stentiford, the agent.

Mr Stentiford stated that the officers’ report  ...  view the full minutes text for item P28/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Mr Ian Gowler the agent.

Mr Gowler thanked the officers for working with him to resolve issues that has meant this application is presented to members with a recommendation to grant the proposal. He stated that he wished to clarify some points in response to the objections raised by neighbours and added that the layout although indicative has been carefully thought out to give sufficient parking and turning for the new property as well as the existing bungalow and as part of the new access the existing parking for the bungalow will provide turning to allow cars to exit without the need to back into or out of the drive.

Mr Gowler stated that the visibility splays will be improved at the new access improving safety and the design of the dwelling is subject to a reserved matters application, but the indicative bungalowshows itwould complementother developmentin thearea. He stated that thisresolves any overlooking issues and privacy is made no worse than the existing bungalow garden use creates and in summary he stated that the proposal meets policy and provides another much needed small bungalow to March.

Members asked Mr Gowler the following questions:

·         Councillor Connor referred to the point concerning the visibility splay and asked Mr Gowler to clarify whether there is any legal agreement in place with the adjacent landowners with regard to the third party land? Mr Gowler stated that it is currently being looked into and he added that the neighbouring bungalow is also using his clients land and there is the need for the site to have a reciprocal arrangement in place between the two owners that the visibility splay will be included into the transfer documents for both properties.

·         Councillor Connor referred to the 45 letters of support and stated that none of them appear to be from residents local to the proposed dwelling, whereas 10 of the letters of the objection are closer to the proposed site, who have raised concerns over visibility and poor access. Mr Gowler expressed the viewthat the letters of support are from friends of the applicant and where they live is not within his control. He added there have been several letters of objection where he has tried to resolve the issues that have been raised, some of them to do with over development, which are as a result of a knock on effect of other similar pieces of land where bungalows have been built on in rear gardens. Councillor Connor stated that the objectors do need to be taken into consideration as they are all in the locality and they will be impacted in one way or another.

·         Councillor Skoulding asked whether the 4ft fence will be removed, which is currently situated at the front of the site, so that there will be a clear view. Mr Gowler  ...  view the full minutes text for item P29/20

To consider the appeals report

Members considered the appeals report presented by Alison Hoffman and David Rowen.

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

Planning Application Reference: (Appeal reference)ENF/012/17/UCU

(Councillor Mrs French had left the meeting prior to the discussion on this item)