Agenda item

To determine the application.

Tim Williams presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gareth Edwards, the agent. Mr Edwards explained that the site is a continuation of the developed line of Glendon Gardens and Sutton Meadows as well as the further development of agricultural buildings to the north. He added that the proposal uses all the land owned by the applicant with no third-party land other than the public footpath and the verge which is in the ownership of the County Council.

Mr Edwards stated that part of the site is within Flood Zone 1 and part of it falls within Flood Zone 3, pointing out that parts of the Flood Zone 3 land is actually higher than the Flood Zone 1. He made the point that the application site is located over 500 metres from the River Nene and the recently commenced development of 221 dwellings and the river.

Mr Edwards referred to the presentation screen and pointed out that the development site shown on the slide is located mostly in Flood Zone 3 and has been referred to on numerous occasions by members of the Planning Committee. He stated that the sequential test and exception tests have been undertaken on the site for Leverington and the site has passed as there are no other sites available that can meet the number of dwellings proposed.

Mr Edwards explained that he has also offered a reduced timeframe for the reserved matters for the exception test to pass and Leverington has been used for the sequential search as that is the postal address and it is Leverington Parish Council who have been consulted on the application and he added that the officer’s reports states that the site is located in the Parish of Leverington. He added that the commitment to reduce the timeframes for the reserved matters demonstrates the commitment of bringing the site forward as soon as possible.

Mr Edwards made the point that the Environment Agency, Lead Local Flood Authority, North Level Internal Drainage Board and Anglian Water also support the proposal albeit subject to the relevant applications to them all and mitigation measures. He stated that the plan shows the indicative layout and will be subject to change if it comes forward at a reserved matters stage and as the officer’s report states the indicative proposal would not generate serious concerns of loss of privacy or over dominance.

Mr Edwards made the point that the site area has been restricted to that which the applicant owns which has led to the opportunity of creating a priority lane which will act as a speed restrictor and will still provide the continuous footpath link through the site. He added that this part of the road is wider than half of the estate road and will, therefore, allow for both service and emergency vehicles to move through the site with adequate turning space so that entering and exiting can be undertaken in a forward gear.

Mr Edwards stated that the main access onto Sutton Road has an adoptable entrance but will require works to the existing footpath and potentially to one of the neighbouring entrances in order to achieve adoption. He explained that at the current time neither of the neighbouring properties have been contacted but he added that he would be happy to accept a condition which requires County Council approval for the access.

Mr Edwards expressed the view that there is an engineered solution available which would be fully investigated and with the approval of Highways. He added that the proposal comes with the approval of the majority of Statutory Consultees and can achieve a 17% biodiversity net gain on ecology when the requirement is one of neutrality.

Mr Edwards explained that he was not aware of any objection from Ecologists, and it was his understanding that all surveys had been undertaken including a reptile assessment, however, if approval is given then he would be happy to accept a condition for it. He added that with regards to the Section 106 matter, the Planning Officer was emailed in October 2023 to confirm that he was happy to agree with the Council’s request of a 10% provision of first homes on the site which is in line with the adopted Section 106 provision and he added that his client has also indicated that they would be happy to accept a payment per dwelling on top of this if felt necessary.

Mr Edwards made the point that the proposal is consistent with other developments in limited growth villages under LP3, especially Coates and Elm.

Members asked Mr Edwards the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked why the neighbouring properties have not been consulted yet with regards to the access? Mr Edwards explained that he was looking to secure an approval first as it could have been seen as residential development. He added that there have been some local objections to the application, and he did not want to exacerbate the situation.

·         Councillor Connor questioned the reasoning behind that decision. Mr Edwards stated that it was felt prudent to get an outline approval on the site in the first instance which then provides the opportunity to enhance and to further consider the access arrangements.

·         Councillor Connor referred to 2.9 metre pinch point and questioned its suitability for a lorry to gain access. Mr Edwards stated that the proposed access for the site is 5 metres through the majority of the site and then there is the pinch point which goes to the residential section. He added that initially that had been shown as a shared surface and as a strip all the way through, however, the Highway Authority stated that they would prefer the footpath to be continued which was agreed. Mr Edwards stated that the pinch point is 2.9 metres to 3 metres wide which is greater than 2.5 metres for the actual access road.

·         Councillor Connor asked Councillor Marks to confirm the size of a large construction lorry? Councillor Marks confirmed that the size is 2.5 metres to 2.8 metres wide.

·         Councillor Hicks asked why a speed hump was not considered instead of the pinch point? Mr Edwards stated that the site is in an indicative layout and, therefore, consideration could be given to a footpath, a speed hump or utilise all of it as access and shared access with a tabletop if required.

·         Councillor Marks asked for confirmation that the road was not going to be adopted? Mr Edwards stated that the County Council would not adopt it and, therefore, it would fall to a management company who would take on the public open space, drainage and SUDs.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to LP3 of the adopted Local Plan and stated that it refers to limited growth and she asked officers whether in their view 33 dwellings can be seen as limited? David Rowen stated that in the officer’s opinion this is a site which relates more to the built form of Wisbech and is, therefore, assessed against the policies relevant to Wisbech rather than being part of Leverington and assessed as a growth village.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked for clarity as to whether a sequential and exception test has been undertaken as she has attended a recent meeting where the Environment Agency, along with Anglian Water and other agencies, met and discussed the adoption of a policy which will require an exception test to be carried out as well.  David Rowen stated that a sequential test has been carried out but only in respect of the village of Leverington and not in the context of Wisbech as the appropriate settlement as this is a site which is evidently bolted onto it.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the Highway Authority object to the proposal as stated in the officer’s report, but she questioned whether that is still their view? David Rowen stated that their objection still stands, and he added that with regards to the point made by Mr Edwards with regards to discussions with neighbours concerning the access, the application is an outline application with matters committed in respect of access and, therefore, what is being applied for on the plan stands and is what would be granted if permission was approved.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that there are 24 letters of objection which have been submitted. David Rowen stated that the objections are set out in the officer’s report.

·         Councillor Marks made reference to an application at the Old Dairy Yard in Manea and  stated that at that time the Highways Officer had raised issue concerning lack of passing places and then subsequently the road was identified as being a private road. He stated that with the application before the committee now, the issue of the pinch point on a private road is being discussed and he asked whether the Highway Authority are able to comment on that aspect? David Rowen expressed the view that the Dairy Yard is a different scenario due to the fact that it was utilising an existing roadway rather than creating a new one and the Highway Authority are providing advice in terms of the adopted highway network and they are also at liberty to comment on other potential highway safety matters which is why they have identified the pinch point as one of those. He made the point that it is rare for the Highway Authority to make comment on aspects such as these and, therefore, in his opinion, if they are flagging it as a potential issue then it must be more severe in its nature.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he notes that Leverington Parish Council have objected to the proposal in 2022, and that objection still stands.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that from the information contained within the officer’s report and from what has been discussed at the meeting, there is no way that she can support the application.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he agrees with Councillor Mrs French and he expressed the view that the highways issue is quite serious when considering the pinch point and the fact that the neighbouring properties have not been spoken to.

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