Agenda item

To determine the application.

Graham Smith 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 Simon Machen, the agent. Mr Machen updated on the outstanding technical matter which is archaeology and reassured members that is not something that is trying to be shirked but is something that is complicated and unexpected. He stated that he and planning officers prior to the application being submitted scoped the technical reports that would be required and archaeology was on neither of their lists on the basis that the site has been remediated to a depth of about 2 metres as it was part of the former gas works, timber yard and metal manufacturing complex that fronted the river.

Mr Machen made the point that The Boathouse adjacent had nothing more than a watching brief condition attached to it when that was built so it was unexpected the level of interest from the archaeologists but they have interrogated the remediation strategy which includes borehole samples and the archaeological reports from the consultants is expected by the end of next week as they have been waiting for the County Council’s archaeologists to provide them with the heritage data information. He expressed concern that the County archaeologist is seeking an intrusive investigation prior to the grant of outline planning permission and the outline before committee does not commit to the siting of buildings or layout so it is not actually known where the built footprint will be and they would be reluctant to go on some kind of “fishing expedition” in terms of archaeological survey work which is likely to be a geo-environmental survey with boreholes down to 4 meters which is where any remains will be in the river silt.

Mr Machen expressed the opinion that there are two options, one is to go with the officer’s recommendation which may require them to do archaeological works at this stage before consent is granted or the second is to do what is quite normal in the case of an outline planning application is to impose a detailed planning condition requiring a scheme of investigation at Reserved Matters stage as the fear is that it may hold up the outline consent depending upon the amount of work that needs to be undertaken to satisfy the County archaeologists but critically nothing can be undertaken in terms of building on the basis of an outline planning permission.

Members asked questions of Mr Machen as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked how confident he was that the archaeology can be sorted out? Mr Machen responded that he is confident that they can satisfy any concerns about archaeology, it is the time at which they need to satisfy is that prior to the grant of an outline consent with all matters reserved in terms of an intrusive on-site investigation or is it via a planning condition on the outline that requires a scheme of investigation, which would be the applicant’s preference as alongside the detailed design work this can be programmed in.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to education requesting a Section 106, which she cannot understand as there is already a new school to be built in Wisbech so she does not think it needs any contributions but referred to NHS, and she understands is the gift of this committee to change a Section 106, and asked if the applicant would be prepared to contribute to the NHS? Mr Machen drew members attention to the committee report and to the Council’s own Local Plan viability report which is clear that north of the A47 development is unviable if you ask for affordable housing contributions and contributions towards infrastructure. He made the point that a large part of the reason that this site has been undeveloped for 20 years after the supplementary planning document for the site is because it is extremely marginal in terms of development viability and it is not attractive to a conventional developer, which is why it has been taken and followed through by Fenland Future Limited. Mr Machen stated that there is a series of abnormals around archaeology and the investigations that needs to be undertaken which will not be cheap, floor levels have to be raised due to flood risk and it is a relatively low value area so whilst there would always be a desire to contribute towards infrastructure costs where it can be but in this instance there is a viability report which has been accepted by the Section 106 Officer indicating that these costs cannot be sustained.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that the recommendation is to approve the application subject to the four month period, which she has never seen before and made the point that it is an outline planning application, which she would be happy to support but with removal of the four months and this becomes part of a Reserved Matters application. David Rowen responded that the Council has a responsibility set out in the NPPF to consider the impact on heritage and there are the comments from the Senior Archaeologist from the County Council requiring further information before they are comfortable with the principle of developing the site and consequently the recommendation has been reached recognising that it is an outline application with all details reserved for future consideration, which is trying to strike a balance. He stated that the information that is required by the County archaeologist has indicated that a watching brief condition would not be suitable and that they need more information and officers cannot say more on this as they are not specialists in this area and if members wish to go down the route of a condition that is within members’ gift, however, whether that satisfies the requirement on the Council to adequately protect heritage assets as part of the NPPF considerations he is not entirely convinced.

·       Councillor Connor asked what officers’ preference would be regarding archaeology? David Rowen responded that their preference is for the course of action in the officer’s recommendation.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that the site is well known, has been derelict for many years and it was recognised that the site was a tipping ground and County Council at the time put the infrastructure for the road in going back at least 10 years. She expressed the view that the site needs to be developed, it is a mess and she will fully support the application but would like the four months removed.

·       Councillor Purser stated he has been past this site many times and had wondered why it had been left derelict, untouched and unloved and with lots of building work going on around the whole area and the population getting older needing care he thinks it is something that is required. He is concerned about archaeology and what might be found on the site.

·       Councillor Connor stated he knows the site, it was the old gas works and it has been remediated to 2 metres as the applicant stated, it does need to be developed and there is no viability north of the A47 and the area definitely needs a care home. He stated that he will be supporting the application and he, like Councillor Mrs French, is concerned about the archaeology and feels it should be a watching brief so the development can be commenced.

·       Councillor Marks made the point that if it is drilled down to 4 metres that would have been under sea level a long time ago so he cannot see that there will be much on the site.

·       Councillor Imafidon stated that as a resident of Wisbech he knows the site very well, it does need development, he fully supports the application and the care home facility is needed in the area, which will also bring jobs.

·       Graham Smith reminded committee that the County archaeologist has pointed out the sensitivity of the site and its potential but if, however, members are minded to remove the four month period it is important that an appropriate planning condition is attached.

·       Councillor Connor asked officers to reiterate what the applicant prefers regarding archaeology. Graham Smith responded that the applicant pointed out that in the applicants view the necessary archaeology work should take place as part of a condition that needs to be discharged rather than undertake works up front. Councillor Connor stated that he agrees with this approach and Councillor Mrs French stated that she also agrees.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per officer’s recommendation with authority delegated to officers in conjunction with the Chairman to formulate conditions including an archaeological condition. 

(Councillor Benney registered that he has been involved with this application by virtue of being a member of the Investment Board and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Mrs French registered that she is a member of Cabinet but has not been involved in this application and is not pre-determined and will approach the application with an open mind)