Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Lunn-Towler, the agent, and Mr Popat, the applicant. Mr Lunn-Towler stated that there are no objections received, the refuse team do not have any concerns and Wisbech Town Council are in support of the application and although there is no parking as detailed in the officer’s report that is acceptable, with there being room for cycle storage as indicated on the site plan which is in the rear garden and the site is located in an area of low flood risk. He referred to a statement from the Highway Authority who have expressed the opinion that the site is in a sustainable location with very good connections with public footpaths to the amenities and services of Wisbech Town Centre and accessible to commercial and employment areas in Weasenham Lane.

Mr Lunn-Towler stated that the application is supported by Policy LP3 with regards to the settlement hierarchy, with the proposal itself being for one additional bedsit which is bedroom six which would be on the first-floor level, and it is of the scale similar to those shown on the plans as bedroom 2 and bedroom 3. He added that the proposal will provide a cost-effective form of living accommodation, with reduced living costs due to the layout it will require limited heating and the reduced costs are further incentivised by walking, cycling and transport links.

Mr Popat stated that he has been renting the flats to local people for a number of years and many of them have been referred by the Housing Options Team, with many of the residents being single people with ties to the area or are employed locally. He expressed the view that he is aware that there is the need for this type of smaller unit in this location due to the engagement that he has had with the Private Sector Housing Team, and he explained that he has been in contact with them along with the Fire Service since 2017 to look at way to improve the layout of the communal staircase, with there being plans in place to have the issues with the staircase rectified before the pandemic but due to Covid those plans have been delayed.

Mr Popat made the point that there are plans in place to refurbish the building completely with energy efficient heating systems, a full insulation program along with new kitchens and bathrooms and a new fire alarm system, with these improvements allowing all the units to be self-contained making it a more pleasant environment for the residents to live in. He explained that the main reason for the application was to assist an elderly resident currently residing on the top floor, who needs to reside on a lower floor due to mobility reasons.

Mr Popat stated that he has spoken to Councillors Hoy and Wallwork along with Wisbech Town Councillor Peter Human about the application and they do support the proposal and have stated that they recognise the need for small cost-effective rental units locally. He asked the committee to support the application as he will be providing high standard, energy efficient units to rent locally whilst restoring a large building.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Miscandlon asked for clarification as to how many of the properties are non-compliant with the requirement for this type of accommodation? Alison Hoffman stated at 3.3 of the officer’s report it shows the details of the existing accommodation which demonstrates that 3 of the 5 properties exceed the technical housing guidance and 2 fall below. She explained that should the proposal be approved, there would be 2 out of the 6 over the technical standards and 4 of the 6 would fall below the technical standard.

·       Councillor Murphy stated that he understands that it is the landlord’s intention to implement further refuse bins and asked whether it could state that there ‘has’ to be the right amount of waste receptacles at the site? Alison Hoffman explained that colleagues from the refuse team have made her aware that Mr Popat has been engaged with them to order and get the bins in place. She added that there would be a requirement for the new development, should it be approved, to make provision for the refuse bins.

·       Councillor Connor referred to 5.3 of the report where it states that the Council’s Private Sector Housing Team have no objection to the proposal, whereas the views of the Planning Officer are totally different. Alison Hoffman stated that there are two totally different legislative frameworks and policy considerations, explaining that the housing team does work to a prescribed space standard and the current Local Plan does not have prescribed space standard. She added that the technical housing standards come after 2014 and the underpinning requirement of LP2 and LP16 is to create a high-quality environment. Alison Hoffman added that if an existing development has an element of sub-standard residential accommodation and it is compared against the National Technical Housing Standards, if the number of units is being increased, in her opinion, it would be remiss of planning officers to not highlight that level of detail to members. She explained that the agent and applicant have reduced the level of residential units proposed but she made the point that there is only so much that can be factored into the existing footprint.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that there are good properties that blend well into being divided up and then there are some that are over developed and, in his view, the officer’s recommendation of refusal is correct. He added that if the application was approved the people that live there would suffer and their standard of living would be poor and the reduction in their living standards would also be reduced as well as the quality of life of those people that should be protected, and he will support the officer’s recommendation.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that as part of the planning process, efforts should be made to improve the accommodation for people to have a better life and not make it any worse. He added that to have four units below the standard and only two above does not satisfy him and he will support the officer’s recommendation.

·       Councillor Miscandlon likened the units to rabbit hutches, and stated that he agrees with the officer’s recommendation, making the point the proposal is trying to fit too much into the existing footprint. He expressed the view that the health and wellbeing of the residents is paramount, and the proposal is detrimental to both current and future residents.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she notes from the photographs that there is a basement property and she made reference to a previous application in Wisbech which the committee refused because it was not up to standard. She asked whether officers could advise what the basement property consists of? Alison Hoffman stated that the basement flat is established through a certificate of lawfulness, explaining that the basement is a one bedroomed self-contained flat with separate kitchen, living room and bathroom which is one of the larger units.

·       Councillor Miscandlon stated that on the photographs it showed the refuse bins which are cited outside the window and if the proposal includes each property having its own bin, it will be detrimental to the resident who lives in that flat as they will be looking out of their window onto an array of dustbins. Alison Hoffman stated that officers did consider that fact and historically one of the flats had two bins and the other four had a bag service, however, she made the point that ideally residents should have proper waste receptacles. She added that all officers can consider as part of the planning application is the impact of the additional bins and work on the assumption that two extra bins would be further away from the window, in her opinion, it could not be argued that the bins would actually impact on residential amenity.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Sutton and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.