Agenda item

To determine the application

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in objection to the application, in accordance with the public Participation Procedure, from Councillor Nick Meekins.

Councillor Meekins stated that he is not opposed to any development on the site or the proposal of a care home but his concern is with regard to the scale of the development. He stated that he has been lobbied over the past few months from residents who reside adjacent to the site who have been inconvenienced already by the activities of the developer and who have expressed their disappointment about the loss of the orchard which was in place when they purchased their homes. Councillor Meekins stated that had a site visit been able to take place, Members would have been able to see the immediate problem with regard to vehicular access on Magazine Lane, which is a narrow road and has traffic flow problems and although Barton Road is a wider road, it can suffer from congestion especially with school traffic. He added that the proposal of a three storey building will be out of character with the existing dwellings in the vicinity and stated that this site was formally an orchard which was cleared of all vegetation in late 2018 and large bonfires were lit without any notification to the local residents.

Councillor Meekins stated that a soakaway drain was filled in without the permission of the Internal Drainage Board and although it was only a soakaway it did alleviate run off water. He added that retrospective approval was granted and a wooden fence was erected adjacent to the fence belonging to the mobile home site which prevented the residents from carrying out any maintenance with a metal barrier fence being erected which was too high at the Magazine Lane end and water from the proposed site drained into the mobile home site which has never been an occurrence before.

Councillor Meekins stated that an agricultural building on the proposed site has now been demolished with building materials being stored in anticipation of commencement of works and that work has been carried out on site during unsociable hours and all of the points that he has raised are having an impact on the existing local residents. He added an additional point of concern is whether the proposal of building the additional 5 dwellings on the site to part fund the care home is normal and will there be any clause to stipulate that it is to follow the plan and not expand into a housing estate?

Councillor Meekins concluded by stating that the major concerns for the existing residents are: the impact on their quality of life, water issues, possible anti-social behaviour due to the proposed footpath, an increase in traffic resulting in congestion of the surrounding roads including Barton Road, Magazine Lane and North Brink, devaluation of their homes and concerns for the healthcare infrastructure which is already oversubscribed in Wisbech.

Councillor Meekins stated that he is not against development on the site and is not against a care home on the site, but in his opinion the scale of the proposal is not suitable for this area.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the public Participation Procedure, from Mr Tim Slater, the Agent.

Mr Slater stated that that he was worked proactively with officers throughout the pre application stage and as and when officers have raised issues they have been addressed.

He expressed the opinion that the application is based on an assessment of the population trends of Wisbech and is intended to meet a demographic need for this type of accommodation in the town and it is designed to accommodate the existing residents in Wisbech.

Members asked Mr Slater the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that there will be an increase in residents in the town, as new residents will replace those residents who move into the care home. He asked whether Mr Slater has engaged with the local GP’s in the area to gauge their views?

·         He further expressed the view that there appears to be no parking provision for ambulances or service vehicles in the proposal and also questioned whether the proposed footpath was a requirement from the Highways Authority?

·         Mr Slater stated that the footpath was introduced to meet one of the key aims of the Broad Concept Plan which is to incorporate accessibility through the new development to join up the major roads however, it is not integral to the development and can be removed. He added that provision has been included for service vehicles and ambulances within the proposal. Mr Slater stated he understands the point raised with regard to additional residents within the town, however, the proposal is to provide specialist accommodation for the existing elderly population within the town.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion, that the proposal is quite a distance from the town centre and residents living in the care facility may have mobility issues. He asked whether the management company will incorporate any minibus service for the residents to utilise? Mr Slater stated that he anticipates that the management company will offer a care package which will include transport services run by the operator.

Members asked Officers the following questions;

·         Councillor Cornwell asked whether it was possible to condition the provision of CCTV to cover the footpath which is a cause for concern? David Rowen stated that as part of condition 15, it includes a scheme for the provision of CCTV to be submitted and will also include how the CCTV will be monitored.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that he notes at condition 23 that the refuse strategy has to be submitted prior to the first occupancy and asked whether that was too late for it to be submitted? David Rowen stated that submission of the strategy before occupancy is not uncommon and the trigger point has to be a definable and reasonable moment in time when the information is required by.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that in his opinion, this is an excellent use of land and that there is a need for this type of development with it freeing up 100 homes which are also needed in Wisbech. He expressed the view that he was surprised that the NHS did not come forward to request any financial contributions and added that this proposal will be very good for the residents and population of Wisbech and will benefit the local economy.

·         Councillor Lynn made the point that he knows the area well.  the proposed footpath will link the playing fields at both ends of the development, which will open up footfall and access to the play areas and the proposed school and the whole area has been earmarked for development so will be changing in years to come. He added that in his view, the proposal is a very good one, it will bring jobs to the area and will free up homes for the younger families that require housing.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that he supports this type of development and care of the elderly is very important. He added that the position of the site is adequate, albeit slightly out of town, he has concerns with the footpath and the Magazine Road end of the development which is narrow for traffic. Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that there needs to be further communication with the NHS, who need to have an input with regard to their thoughts on the proposal.

·         Councillor Hay expressed the opinion that it is a very good use of land and the proposal looks modern and there is plenty of space to accommodate the building. She added that within the conditions, she had expected to see the stipulation that none of the 5 additional dwellings should be occupied until the footings of the care home were above ground level. David Rowen stated that condition 24 states that no dwellings should be occupied on site until the footings of the care home were above ground level.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that the design will not have a large impact on overlooking as the closest part is only single storey. He added that he has concerns with regard to the update report which states conditions which could be seen as onerous, however overall he believes it is a good scheme and he will support it. David Rowen stated that the concerns Councillor Sutton has with regard to the occupancy conditions are common when dealing with this type of proposal to ensure that the application can take the form that is envisaged and the agent has agreed with the clauses.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that the proposal is right for Wisbech and he will be recommending the application for approval.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Lynn and decided that the application be APPROVED as per the officers recommendation.

(Councillor Meekins registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning matters, that he had been lobbied on this application and that he had also registered to speak on the item and therefore would take no part in the discussion or vote)