Agenda item

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 covers all of the issues very thoroughly, but he wanted to make some brief comments in support of the proposal, with the changes that are proposed enabling the scheme to be delivered as 100% affordable homes, which  he is delighted to have been able to do this. He stated that the Council’s data indicates that no affordable units have been built in Wisbech in the past three years and as a result there are a total of 619 applicants on the Housing Register needing an affordable home in Wisbech, with this proposal providing 137 affordable units and therefore making a substantial contribution to reversing this trend and beginning to tackle the shortfall.

Mr Stentiford expressed the view that the amendments to the scheme are minor, and as highlighted in the officer’s report they will not result in any significant harm to residential amenity. He feels that although the scale has changed at certain points along the boundary, achievable and appropriate separation distances are in place and there will be no unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy whatsoever.

Mr Stentiford added that the relationships between existing and proposed dwellings are typical of residential areas, and it would be wrong to prevent affordable homes from being provided on this basis.

He clarified paragraph 1.7 of the committee report where it states that there are no implications for the existing S106 contributions and stated that he is going to deliver the requirements of the existing S106 agreement in its entirety, including the financial contribution for affordable housing, as well as delivering the whole scheme as affordable on site. The scheme will provide a mix of rented and shared ownership homes, encouraging a mixed neighbourhood in the setting of attractive open space and public realm, which will be a great place to live.

Mr Stentiford stated that the development is entirely acceptable in respect of policy.it is strongly supported by officers and most importantly, in his view, it will make a life changing difference to local families who are waiting for affordable homes right now. He added that it is a high quality scheme, which will deliver much greater benefits over the existing permission, and he would be very grateful for the support of the committee with regard to the application.

Members asked Mr Stentiford the following questions:

·         Councillor Lynn asked Mr Stentiford to clarify how the relocation of 3 bungalows would stop the development being 100% affordable? Mr Stentiford stated that the whole scheme has been designed to be deliverable from the point of the registered provider and the proposal before members, in his opinion, is a scheme that works,  there is no unacceptable impact and the proposal is clear on planning policy and is more than adequate in terms of separation distances.

·         Councillor Lynn stated that whilst he appreciates that legally Mr Stentiford is correct and he has no issue with the whole development, there could be an element of goodwill which could be factored into the proposal. He reiterated his question and asked why moving three bungalows from one part of the site into a different part of the site, stops the proposal from being 100% affordable? He added that consideration needs to be given to the existing residents in the locality who will be effected and whilst from a legal and planning perspective he appreciates that Mr Stentiford is compliant, an element of goodwill is required which will appease the local community. He does appreciate the Section 106 contributions, but out of 137 properties, three of those are causing concern and he asked Mr Stentiford to take that into consideration. Mr Stentiford explained that there are procedures in place for the scheme to be signed off by the registered provider and if something had been fixed in place which was then deemed to be unacceptable due to planning policy then it would be revisited, but in this case there is no unacceptable harm and the risk to return to the detail of the proposal at this stage would put the project in jeopardy.

·         Councillor Hay acknowledged that clearly there is no harm, but there will be a risk of loss of privacy in the development and overlooking. She stated that that slightly more bungalows are being built as part of this proposal and questioned why the previous scheme could not have been made 100% affordable. Mr Stentiford stated that this scheme has been completely tailored to meet the requirements of what the registered provider believes they need to provide and by looking at the housing register and looking at the requirements as set out by Homes England. He added that the fundamentals of the scheme are then looked at and the size of units and plots and what is provided in each unit, including floor space, with  this information is provided to the architects and this is how the proposal has been put together.

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that whilst he would empathize with the 3 or 4 properties that will back on to the new plots that will affect them, there is no difference to many other developments that have been approved previously. He stated that there is no specific policy in the Local Plan, but the national policy is 21 metres and there have been approvals made by the committee of distances much closer than that. He added that there are no grounds that are defendable at appeal should the application be refused and there are no reasons in

·         planning policy terms to refuse the application and he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that she agrees with Councillor Lynn’s comment concerning goodwill. She does not find the proposal acceptable and whilst Mr Stentiford made reference to going back to the fundamentals of the proposal not being an option in this case, she feels for the sake of moving the three bungalows in this case she thinks that he should and she will not be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Lynn expressed the view that he believes the agent has not given a clear response as to why the 3 bungalows cannot be relocated within the site, which will appease everybody, and he will not be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that affordable homes are needed, and her concern is if the application is refused by the committee then the Council is in great danger of incurring great expense and delay much needed affordable homes.

·         Nick Harding stated that the scheme that is before the committee today has been changed which is worse for some of the abutting residents than it was before, but members need to decide whether the decrease in amenity makes the scheme unacceptable. The separation distances between the backs of the houses and the existing bungalows is in excess of what is required under national policy and if the application was refused then it would be difficult to provide a reason for refusal on the grounds of unacceptable loss of amenity and overlooking.

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

(Councillor Connor declared an interest in this item, by virtue of the fact that he is pre-determined and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon. Councillor Mrs Hay chaired this agenda item)