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 Tim Slater, the Agent.

Mr Slater stated that in response to the officer’s comprehensive report he wished to make only 4 brief points; with regard to policy, Wisbech St Mary is identified in the Local Plan as a growth village under LP3 and as such was expected to accommodate significant growth throughout the plan period. He stated that it is noted that LP3 enables new development within the existing urban area or as small village extensions to it and the policy, therefore, is specifically worded to enable peripheral development to the larger villages which acknowledges the lack of sites within the built form.

Mr Slater stated that it is clear that the majority of the growth in Wisbech St Mary since 2014 has been on the edge of the village and he stated that the Planning Officer has addressed LP3 but has concluded that notwithstanding this, the site is more related to the countryside than the village edge and he disagrees with that conclusion as he believes that the sites former use associated with the coal yard gives weight to the relationship to the village rather than agricultural uses beyond. He stated that with regard to overall sustainability, the purpose of the planning system is to secure sustainable development in both policy and determining planning applications and, in his opinion, the site is consistent with the settlement hierarchy and site criteria including the fact that the site is physically close to the centre of the village with the services and facilities and it is much closer to the village centre than the much of the eastern part of the built form of the village itself.

Mr Slater expressed the view that in sustainability and accessibility terms it is in a sustainable location for development contrary to the wording of reason for refusal 2. He added that with regard to flood risk, as is common with many Fenland villages, Wisbech St. Mary is constrained by flood risk issues, however, the application site is in Flood Zone 1 which is the area of lowest risk and as such is sequentially preferable to all sites in higher risk categories.

Mr Slater expressed the opinion that with regard to impact, it is considered that the impact in terms of appearance and residential amenity would be minimal and that the proposal would not cause material harm to the character of the area. He added that there are no technical objections to the proposal and the third reason for refusal in terms of access is not supported by an objection from highways and there are a number of letters of support.

Mr Slater concluded by stating that it is considered that the proposal is similar to the application at Wingfield that was granted by the Planning Committee at their November meeting, and it is consistent with LP3 and is in a sustainable and accessible location.

Members asked Mr Slater the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney asked Mr Slater to clarify where the refuse collection point would be for the dwelling as it is a long driveway? Mr Slater stated that the refuse collection point would have to be adjacent to Station Road, to fall in line with the Council’s refuse collection policy. Councillor Benney asked whether the refuse bins will be stored in the vicinity of the proposed dwelling or whether a refuse collection point is being incorporated further along the driveway? Mr Slater stated that the refuse bins will be stored at the property and moved to the end of the driveway for collection.

·         Councillor Mrs Bligh asked whether there will be a storage point for the bins to be placed when they are brought to the end of the driveway or whether they will be left on the pavement? She also questioned the driveway, which is very narrow and asked whether a passing place had been considered to enable two cars to pass? Mr Slater stated that as this is an outline application a bin storage point could be incorporated. He added that with regard to the width of the access, it is a very narrow driveway and potentially two cars could pass although it would be very tight. He added that as it is a narrow driveway, there is the opportunity for vehicles to see each other and give way to each other to access and egress. Councillor Mrs Bligh stated that the access does concern her, and she would not like to see any vehicles reversing out onto Station Road.

·         Councillor Topgood asked whether the former coal yard is in a direct straight line from the driveway and Mr Slater confirmed that is correct.

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

·         Councillor Murphy stated that the refuse from the dwellings will not be collected unless it is placed on the boundary where it meets Station Road due to the poor access.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that the access is extremely poor, and he cannot understand why anybody would wish to develop down a track with such poor access and egress.

·         Councillor Mrs Bligh stated that she agrees with the comments made by Councillor Murphy and she agrees with the officer’s recommendation for refusal. She added that Wisbech St Mary is a growth village, however, it is over the threshold and has seen an increase in development over recent years. Councillor Mrs Bligh stated that the access is poor although the Highway Authority have not sited any issues. She expressed the view that it is back land development and is development into the open countryside and the officer has addressed the reasons in the report with regard to backfill development that has already taken place.

·         Councillor Topgood queried what the refuse arrangements are for the dwelling which is already in place down the track.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he undertook a site visit and he would question whether there was enough room for two vehicles to pass as, in his opinion, he finds it doubtful. He added that, in his view, the officer’s recommendation for refusal is correct.

·         Councillor Purser stated that, in his opinion, the access is so poor any emergency vehicles would struggle to access the dwellings.

·         Councillor Topgood asked officers to clarify the refuse arrangements for the dwelling already in place. David Rowen stated that he is unsure of the arrangements, but added that there are wider issues to consider, such as does the proposal conform with the settlement hierarchy that the relevant proposal detail with regard to development on the edge of villages as well as the more practical issues such as access which conflicts with Council policies.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that he recalls that the existing site was serviced by a private refuse collection company. David Rowen stated that he believes Councillor Benney may have been referring to a different site further along Station Road where there were 4 dwellings and added that in terms of viability, it may be easier to procure a refuse collection for 4 dwellings as opposed to a single dwelling. Councillor Benney asked whether it would be possible to arrange a private refuse collection for the dwelling? David Rowen stated that if members were minded to grant planning permission it may be possible to add a condition to the approval for a private refuse collection strategy to be submitted and agreed so it maybe constituted, however, it is only to serve one dwelling and the access may not be deemed suitable to accommodate a reasonable sized vehicle on a regular basis.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Mrs Bligh and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Mrs Bligh declared, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they she is the Parish Clerk of Wisbech of St Mary Parish Council and also the Ward Councillor for Wisbech St Mary, but takes no part in planning matters)