Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update that had been circulated. She made members aware that a further objection has been received from a local resident, with reasons for objection being over-development, out of keeping with the area along with concerns over traffic and highway safety particularly in respect of intensification of the use of the single access onto Leverington Road and whilst the resident considers that the proposed frontage development appears appropriate in the street scene, the possibility of including a further number of properties to the rear would be excessive. A query was also raised in respect of landscaping and the possible replacement of a TPO tree that was recently removed.  

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Andrew Woodhead, an objector. Mr Woodhead stated that he lives at 153B Leverington Road, next door to the proposed development and, in his view, this is over-development of the site, with up to 8 houses with one or more vehicles per household would be akin to living next door to a car park in comparison to the quiet environment that he currently enjoys. He feels almost constant vehicle movements, potentially daily deliveries to the properties and more noise pollution from regular slamming of vehicle doors is above levels of acceptable noise for the quiet enjoyment of his home.

Mr Woodhead expressed the view that the amount of noise, dirt and dust throughout the demolition and construction process of up to 8 houses is detrimental to his general health and well-being, with the long working hours of the overall process resulting in almost permanent noise and disruption to his daily life for the duration of the works. He expressed the opinion that the loss of privacy due to the removal of the existing boundary tree line and foliage between the two properties provides him with a great degree of privacy and also a sound barrier and if the existing tree line and foliage is removed questioned what will it be replaced with if anything.

Mr Woodhead stated that the two-storey properties at the front of the development closest to Leverington Road would also be able to have a direct line of sight to his property should the tree line be removed and not replaced. He feels that site traffic would increase congestion on an already extremely busy Leverington Road, which in turn he believes would create a potential road safety issue for both motorists and pedestrians.

Mr Woodhead expressed the view that the proposed development places an increased demand however small on already overstretched local infrastructure and services. He stated that he would not object to the proposed 4 semi-detached properties at the top end of the development closest to Leverington Road itself but reiterated that a garden grab, which he views this as, of up to 8 properties would potentially be anti-social and totally unacceptable to him.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Russell Swann, the agent. Mr Swann stated that the application has the support of most of the statutory consultees including Highways and the Tree Officer and it is disappointing that he has not secured the support of the Town Council but as their response indicates the proposal is for 9 dwellings he is not sure if they have actually seen the current proposal. He advised that revisions have been made to the scheme during the application, removing 5 houses to the rear of the site and replacing them with 4 bungalows replicating the adjacent bungalow at 153B, with this bungalow being located in a tandem location.

Mr Swann expressed the view that the form and character is consistent with this part of the area, the existing and the proposed bungalows at the rear reduces the impact and overlooking from both perspectives providing much needed bungalows in the town. He stated that the dwellings at the front are semi-detached houses, which is consistent with the built form on Leverington Road.

Mr Swann made the point that Wisbech is a market town under Policy LP3 where the majority of the District’s new housing should take place and this development will provide both semi-detached houses and bungalows offering a mix of new dwellings and if you cannot put a development like this in a market town where can you. He stated that it is an outline application with all matters reserved, the indicative layout shows a single point of access which will reduce the number of accesses onto Leverington Road as the site currently has two and Highways are in support of the application, with the layout showing that full turning is achieved for all properties so all vehicles will be entering and exiting the site in forward gear and each dwelling has two parking spaces.

Mr Swann stated that the site at present has two dwellings on it and garden to the rear so this is a development which is on previously developed residential land and the proposals will look to use all of the existing mains services, with surface water being contained on site and soakaways designed to BRE365 standard and all approved by Building Regulations. He reiterated parcels of land like this are massively valuable to the housing stock in Fenland, plots like these will be developed by self-builders, developers, local people that are being priced out of larger sections of the market, with small builders and self-builders employing local tradesmen, buying from local merchants which support other businesses locally.

Mr Swann stated that the site is within the market town of Wisbech, it is an area that has tandem development surrounding the site, it is a brownfield residential site already, it is not over-development of the site as all dwellings will have parking and rear amenity space that is consistent with the Local Plan, it reduces the number of accesses to Leverington Road which will in turn improve highway safety and asked committee to approve the application with any conditions deemed appropriate.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she does believe the Town Council have got this right and the proposal is over-development of the site.

·       Councillor Imafidon echoed the comments of Councillor Mrs French, he believes that 8 properties is too many and constitutes over-development.

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

(Councillor Rackley registered that he was a member of Wisbech Town Council’s Planning Committee when this application was considered and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Benney declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he had been lobbied on this application)