Agenda item

To determine the application

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Gareth Edwards, the Agent.

Mr Edwards explained that the application is for 6 dwellings at land west of the former Sunset Rooms, Station Road, Wisbech St Mary, with the application being before the committee with the support of officers, following the granting of permission for 3 other dwellings on the site and made the point that he has worked closely with Planning Officers making the revisions as required to obtain their recommendation of approval. He stated that the site is within Flood Zone 1, which is unlike most of the village, and it abuts the built form as it was part of the car park for the former Sunset Rooms, which is previously developed land and as the report states Wisbech St Mary is a growth village where development will be appropriate either within the existing urban area or as a small village extension.

Mr Edwards stated that the site is served via an existing access, which used to serve the Sunset Rooms and historically had a vast amount of traffic using it, with the proposal making the best use of the land and finishing off this part of the village. He asked the committee to support the officer’s recommendation and approve the application with the conditions recommended.

Members asked Mr Edwards the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton asked for confirmation as to whether the land ownership also includes the road and also riparian ownership for the ditch, which is in a poor state. He asked for clarity as to how details of the riparian ownership will be conveyed to the new owners and whether an informative could be added so that the condition of the ditch can be improved? Mr Edwards stated that it is his understanding that as it is riparian then permission needs to be sought in order to carry out any works on the ditch with the opposite side. Councillor Sutton stated that he cannot imagine that the other party would not wish to engage to have works carried out on the ditch and he added that if the application was approved then an informative should be added.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the recent reports of flooding that she has been receiving and stated that there needs to be an element of follow up work undertaken with regard to ensuring that those responsible maintain the areas of dykes they are accountable for. She added that she will support the application if there is a condition included that the surface water is managed correctly and not left to flood the rest of Wisbech St Mary.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton asked for clarity that the footprint for the outline planning permission is the same or very similar to the proposal before members. Alison Hoffman stated that it is a different form of development, so it is not exactly the same, but as part of the presentation that was shown to members a comparison and contrast of the two schemes was shown. She added that due to the nature of the roadway a similar position would have to be adopted and the current development layout is more preferential in terms of the relationship of the property that sides on to the end of the site and the earlier application was an outline application, which did not commit the layout, so this application has to be looked at in its own right.

·         Alison Hoffman referred to an earlier comment made with regard to additional conditions with regard to surface water and added that surface water would fall under the remit of Building Regulations. She added that applying drainage conditions in this case would not necessarily meet the tests outlined in the NPPF in that such matters would be dealt with under Building Regulations and North Level Internal Drainage Board have not raised any comment regarding the drainage ditch. Nick Harding stated that he concurs with Alison Hoffman but added that if members wished to add an informative to remind future occupants of their riparian responsibilities that could be considered.

·         Councillor Marks referred to 5.5 regarding refuse collection and asked that if the homeowners are going to make their own private arrangements for refuse collections would that still be the same size vehicle as a normal refuse freighter? Alison Hoffman stated that the issue is the constraints of the access point, there isn’t an accessible point to place the bins and the fact that the bin travel distance exceeds the RECAP guidelines. She added that as part of the conditions, a refuse collection strategy would have to be submitted, which would identify what the arrangements would be put in place, what the individual obligations of the homeowners would be with regard to presenting their bins for collection and it would be for the refuse contractor who is providing the service to specify what types of vehicle would be used. She stated that the officer’s role would be to secure a bin collection service and not to drill down into the finer detail. Nick Harding added that the road is going to be a private road and the Council’s refuse freighters do not access properties on private roads for fear of any damage caused which could then make the Council liable. However, the service could be delivered by the authority if an indemnity was received from the owner of the road.

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he has read the report thoroughly and it is always good to see Agents and Officers working proactively together. He thinks that the proposal is beneficial to the village and fully supports the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Cornwell asked whether the end of the lane, which always used to serve the car park at the bottom for the large community centre, is to be blocked off or will it become an access or egress point for the community centre. Councillor Sutton stated that he drove in off Station Road and drove out on Beechings Close as it is currently open, and he was able to drive straight through.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that she does not have an issue with the application, but she is concerned with the issue of the drain, although she appreciates that North Level IDB have said that they have no comment to make. She added that the drain needs to be looked at and she would like to see officers carry out further investigation work to ensure that it is maintained properly.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Mrs Frenchand decided that the application be APPROVED, as per the officer’s recommendation, with the addition of an informative to the permission in relation to the drain.