Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.  He informed members that a late representation had been received from residents of The Water Gardens pointing out that:

·         all properties in the development are subject to covenants designed to prevent any use apart from private residential

·         the Council has repeatedly refused planning permission to other sites in the development insisting that the character of residential properties with large gardens should be maintained

·         the original property has already been doubled in size with the garage converted to dormitories

·         the proposed extension will fill the rear garden with the type of development the Council has quite reasonably repeatedly refused others in the development to do

·         the school owns extensive grounds and could build a dormitory on their own land if they need one

·         there are numerous existing buildings nearby in the town which could readily be converted to dormitories

·         the developer purports to be retaining the property as a residential non-commercial enterprise but 8 The Water Gardens is the registered office of KJL Property Management, a company created 2 years ago whose only asset appears to be 8 The Water Gardens so the property does not belong to the school and is, therefore, a commercial enterprise which at any time could be used for other purposes.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Meekins, a District Councillor, read out by Member Services.  Councillor Meekins stated that he wished to object chiefly on the grounds of overdevelopment of the existing property by a considerable percentage footprint increase and the loss of privacy and overlooking to some of the neighbouring properties.  He expressed the view that other concerns are that the new development will lead to a relatively large number of school age children being housed in a very quiet cul-de-sac with only seven other properties in it, with the potential for increased noise nuisance being a real one.

Councillor Meekins expressed the opinion that the design and appearance of the proposed extension is completely out of kilter with the present development.  He feels that there has been no consultation between Wisbech Grammar School and the local residents.

Councillor Meekins stated that already the developers building staff have caused extra traffic flow and inconsiderate parking and a mature tree on site was felled because “it was in the way” without any discussion with the existing residents.  He made the point that Wisbech Grammar School is a flagship institution in Wisbech, but, in his view, the way this proposal has been handled has been very poor to its potential neighbours.  He would have thought that a boarding house would have been better situated on the Grammar School campus and be purpose built rather than a converted domestic premises, with the school having very extensive grounds in which to have done this.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Bird, an objector to the proposal.  Mr Bird stated that eight years ago the Planning Inspectorate on appeal turned down an application for an infill dwelling in The Water Gardens as “it would cause harm to the visual and residential amenities of the road contrary to Policy E8 of the Fenland DWLP 1993 and Policy CS16 of the emerging Fenland Planning Core Strategy of 2013”.  He made the point that there was only one objection at that time from neighbours to this application and that objector did not even live on The Water Gardens, with all seven of the neighbours objecting to this proposal due to the visual impact the proposed development will have.

Mr Bird questioned why the case officer has recommended approval of this application when the earlier application was turned down, which, in his view, shows a total lack of consistency.  He stated that The Water Gardens is a small residential development comprising of 8 large detached well-spaced dwellings served by a narrow private road with the properties built approximately 60 years ago. 

Mr Bird expressed the opinion that the sewage comprises of 5 inch clay pipes which are susceptible to blocking and asked what impact of the approximately 10 toilets and many baths and showers, equivalent of another 5 dwellings, is going to have on this sewage system designed in the 60’s which has problems coping with the 8 dwellings it already serves.  He expressed the view that they have been told that the proposed units will be occupied by foreign students, with the application being made on behalf of a Chinese company called KJL Property Management Limited, which they have failed to put on the planning application form which is misleading. 

Mr Bird stated that the investors also own and run the school as a business and asked if no foreign students wished to attend Wisbech Grammar School, would the school look to use the property for English boarding students and if so there would be nowhere for parking for the parents and visitors. He expressed the view that even now the driveway in front of the property is full most of the time by school or trade vehicles. 

Mr Bird feels that the KJL Property Management have totally disregarded the property’s covenants with the planning process, by felling trees and putting a footbridge across without planning being granted.  He stated that the application originally made by this company was for a three-storey extension and after discussion with the case officer, and objections of residents, this was reduced to, in his view, a two-storey monstrosity as is shown by the photographs. 

Mr Bird expressed the opinion that, if permission is granted, the Planning Authority would have difficulty refusing a later application for a three-storey building, which is known to be the applicant’s preferred option to gain more units and also gives way to other property owners in the road applying for permission to build in between their houses as large-scale gardens surround every house.  He reiterated that all the occupants of The Water Gardens object to this proposal, which, in his view, would be visually intrusive and have a harmful impact on the character, beauty and tranquillity of this area. 

Mr Bird expressed the view that the proposal is totally out of keeping with the neighbourhood, would cause harm to the residential amenities of the area and furthermore if the application was successful it would show a complete lack of consistency and total disregard of the Council’s own regulations.  He referred to the pictures on the presentation screen, which show, in his view, the impact on the residents of The Water Gardens, which is demonstrated in a one-dimensional way, but the impact will be far greater if completed.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Booth referred to the late representation read out by officers, which mentioned a potential commercial use of the property and asked would this proposal break the existing use of this property or not?  David Rowen responded that the representation made reference to the fact that there are covenants on the property restricting commercial use and the enforcement of covenants is not a material planning consideration.  He stated that it is a question of whether the extension, which already has authorised use as a boarding house, and the increase in the number of residents is appropriate.

·         Councillor Booth made the point that residents are saying that the property is owned by a commercial body so effectively it is not residential but commercial as it is renting out accommodation. David Rowen responded that it is his understanding that the company that is referred to is a subsidiary company of the Grammar School, but members should not get too embroiled in who or who does not own the property, the application is clear in that is for boarding house use in association with the Grammar School.  The Chairman made the point that it does not matter who owns the property the focus is on the application before members.

·         Councillor Booth asked for clarification that it is not classed as commercial use because it is being used as a boarding house versus residential, which it has permission for?  Nick Harding reiterated that it has planning consent for use as a boarding house in association with Wisbech Grammar School so this is what the lawful use is.

·         Councillor Mrs French requested clarification that members are looking at an extension only and the use of it is not a material consideration?  The Chairman confirmed this to be correct.

·         Councillor Booth referred to the pre-application discussions and changes made to the proposal and asked if more suitable sites were part of those discussions?  David Rowen responded that members have to look at the proposal in front of them and if that is acceptable.

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

·         Councillor Booth expressed his difficulty with the application from the perspective of what the development is in a residential area but is tied by what the planning rules allows.  He feels there are two areas of concern, which are residential loss of amenity to the neighbours and parking, but officers are saying these are not material in scale to warrant refusal of planning permission and whilst he does not agree with the application, he is struggling to find any reason why it should be refused.

·         Councillor Mrs French agreed with Councillor Booth in that there is no justification in planning law to refuse, although she does sympathise with the residents.

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

(Councillor Cornwell declared an interest in this application, by virtue of the fact that his granddaughter attends Wisbech Grammar School, and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)