Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 23 July 2025.

The minutes of the meeting of 23 July 2025 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

Niki Carter presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Mrs French, the Ward Councillor for the application site and a member of both the March Future High Street and March Area Transport Study boards. Councillor Mrs French stated that members will have seen with their own eyes the transformation of March Town Centre using external grant funding from Government and the Combined Authority which has reinvented Broad Street, the riverside and Market Place. She added that grants have been given to property owners to improve their buildings and bring empty floorspace back into use with the Broad Street project, seeing the Listed Fountain relocated and the war memorial which is now surrounded by high quality public realm rather than sitting in the middle of the road.

Councillor Mrs French explained that, as a result of the transformation, the project has been shortlisted for the National Transport Awards in October 2025 in the exemplary approach to active travel and public space category. She made the point that it is often mentioned about the spiralling costs of public sector projects, and she stated that the Broad Street project was delivered on time and under budget, with the budget stretched delivering more through creative and prudent financial management including the redevelopment of the area outside Iceland which was an eyesore as well as additional car parking spaces in City Road.

Councillor Mrs French stated that it is important for the committee to understand the background when considering the application before them, Barclays Bank site has always been seen as the final piece of the March Town Centre regeneration jigsaw and the site was purchased using the Future High Street grant money, with the building being used as the site office and compound throughout the project. She referred members of the committee to the Council’s own March Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan which describes the Barclays building as a negative frontage which has a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene and the March Conservation Area.

Councillor Mrs French stated that the Conservation Officer has referred to the site’s brutalist architecture but, in her view, the residents she has spoken to consider that the building is an eyesore and they cannot wait to see it demolished. She expressed the opinion that if an application were to be received for this type of design or building in any Conservation Area, she believes it would be refused by the Council.

Councillor Mrs French stated that the application is supported by a heritage report which has been prepared by a specialist conservation consultant which justifies the demolition, expressing the view that the conversion of the building is unviable, and it is not something that the residents of March want to see. She added that the residents want to see a new building which is befitting the setting which has been created, and it will be the jewel in the crown for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P33/25

To determine the application.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

To determine the application.

Alan Davies presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Penney, the agent. Ms Penney stated that she is pleased to see that the officer recommendation is one of approval and advised the committee that a similar application was considered by the committee in December 2024. She explained that at that time the committee decided that the principle of development was acceptable with regards to the location of the site and the number of proposed dwellings, however, concerns were raised with regards to the sequential test.

Ms Penney added that those concerns have been considered, and a more robust sequential test has been provided and both officers and the agent have now concluded that there are no other sequentially preferable sites available within Gorefield and, therefore, the proposal meets the sequential test. She explained that after passing the sequential test, the exception test needs to be applied and paragraphs 9.24 to 9.30 in the officer’s report demonstrate and confirm that the exception test is met and all remaining matters relating to flood risk have been addressed.

Ms Penney added that she is aware that the Parish Council have objected to the proposal on highway safety and flood risk grounds, however, at 9.35 of the officer’s report it states that the Highways Authority have raised no objections. She made the point that the concerns regarding flood risk have been overcome and, therefore, there are no remaining issues with the application.

Ms Penney added that as the committee’s only concern with regards to the sequential test has been overcome and the fact that it has been demonstrated that the proposal now meets the requirements of the sequential test she would ask the committee to approve the proposal in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Members asked the Ms Penney the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether any contact has been made with the North Level Internal Drainage Board with regards to the application? Ms Penney stated that she has not consulted them but believes that they are automatically consulted as part of the consultation process. Councillor Mrs French stated that none of the Internal Drainage Boards are statutory consultees, but they do have dykes around the application area, and she advised Ms Penney that should the application be approved then they should be contacted sooner rather than later. Ms Penney stated that officers have confirmed that there is a comment on the officer’s file from the drainage board.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked for confirmation as to what response the Internal Drainage Board provided to officers? Alan Davies explained that response was received on 24 June which stated that they had no objection subject to a pre-commencement condition requiring submission of surface water systems and outfalls. He added that officers have considered the response, and a condition will be added to the decision notice should planning permission be granted.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as  ...  view the full minutes text for item P35/25

To determine the application.

Alan Davies presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Jordan Trundle, the agent, and Andrew and Lance Allen, in attendance on behalf of the applicant. Mr Trundle explained that the application is for a variation of conditions for the implementation of planning application F/YR21/0339/F, relating to external materials, surface water, external lighting, biodiversity, finished floor levels, landscaping and approved plans and documentation. He added that he fully agrees with the officer’s assessment in the report and the recommendation for approval.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the application has already received approval and is before the committee for a variance in the conditions which she is happy with.

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

To determine the application.

Alan Davies presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent, and Rachel Sharman, the applicant. Mr Hall explained that the application was deferred from the meeting in May as a result of the committee requesting further details concerning business accounts, details of who was going to reside in the proposed dwelling and provision of a business plan. He added that the requests of members have been considered and that information has been provided to officers which has included four years of accounts for the business which has been established since 1988.

Mr Hall explained that it will be members of the Sharman family who are employed in the business that will be living in the occupational dwelling if it is granted and all members of the family have been involved with the design of the dwelling. He added that the applicant prepared a business plan to give a history of the business and the proposal going forward together with security and he explained that there are no objections to the application, and all the consultees support the application.

Mr Hall made the point that he gave an overview of the business at the Planning Committee in May which includes out of hours working on heavy good vehicles (HGV), trailers, play equipment, gates, structural steel work as well as expanding into shop blasting and powder coating. He explained that a lot of this work can be undertaken out of hours and also at weekends and all of the work does require bulk buying which is in the business plan and all the material are left on site.

Mr Hall explained that the business has been located at the site for over 20 years and is, therefore, not a new business. He added that it wishes to stay and expand at the location with an occupational dwelling and a further shed on the site for the Sharman family and their business.

Members asked the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks stated that he welcomes the fact that a business is trying to expand and he added that officers have explained that the business does not receive deliveries out of hours. He added that HGV owners often require their vehicles to be worked on out of hours and he questioned whether the business has a contract in place to work on HGV vehicles out of hours? Ms Sharman explained that most of the businesses customers with HGVs require works to be undertaken out of hours because they work during the day and require repairs to be undertaken out of hours.

·         Councillor Marks stated that officers have explained that the family currently reside 3 minutes’ drive away from the application site and he questioned whether Ms Sharman parks her car in a garage. Ms Sharman stated that she does not. Councillor Marks made the point that the 3 minutes travel time is on a day where the weather is good and he added  ...  view the full minutes text for item P37/25

To determine the application.

Appendix 3 to this report comprises exempt information - to exclude the public (including the press) from a meeting of a committee it is necessary for the following proposition to be moved and adopted: “that the public be excluded from the meeting for Items which would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

Matthew Leigh explained that the application was presented to the committee originally on 28 May 2025 and only those members who were present at that meeting can take part in any discussion or voting.

Tom Donnelly presented an overview of the application to the committee.

Matthew Leigh explained that a letter has been received in relation to the debate and the decision that members made at meeting in May and with this in mind the item has been returned to the committee for consideration. He explained that the officer’s report provides some of the key considerations in relation to heritage and legislation as well as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Planning Policy Guidance along with the actual consultation response and the applicants statement which have been attached as appendices. Matthew Leigh made the point that officers are conscious of the current situation and whilst members can make an informed decision based on the planning merits of the scheme, the report highlights the various considerations that members need to be aware of when making a decision on the application. He asked members to reconsider their position and decide whether they still consider that the granting of planning permission is still appropriate.

Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that the committee need to reflect on the officer’s report and there are a couple of salient points which require a debate in order that the committee can ascertain further steps with the two points being taken into consideration.

The Legal Officer explained that she is not going to refer to the advice which the committee have received on the specific application as that has been included in the confidential appendices. She made the point that she wishes to set out the procedure and the process which the committee needs to work through in order to reach their determination.

The Legal Officer explained that the starting point is Section 66 of the Planning Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990, with that legislation stating that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a Listed Building or its setting, the Local Planning Authority should have special regards to the desirability of preserving the building or its settings or any features of special architectural or historical interest. She explained that case law has subsequently clarified that what that means is that the Planning Committee must give considerable weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of the Listed Building and that is a point for the committee to note that there is an obligation to attach considerable weight to the significance of the Listed Building and to the preservation of it.

The Legal Officer made the point that with regards to how the committee go about determining an application, members should initially consider Paragraph 213 of the NPPF, which states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset then great weight should be given to the assets conservation and that really reflects the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P38/25

To determine the application.

Appendix 2 to this report comprises exempt information - to exclude the public (including the press) from a meeting of a committee it is necessary for the following proposition to be moved and adopted: “that the public be excluded from the meeting for Items which would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

Matthew Leigh explained that this application has been returned to the committee because officers feel it has similarities to the previous application. He advised members that the application came before the committee on the 25 June for a new dwelling and it had two recommended reasons for refusal, one in relation to the impact on the Listed Building and one in relation to access issues and highway matters.

Matthew Leigh added that at that meeting members resolved to grant planning permission and the reason this has now come back to the committee is because officers consider that the legal advice which has been received is directly applicable and relevant to this application. He added that because of that advice it was thought to be appropriate to bring it forwards for the attention of members.

Matthew Leigh explained that the application is still recommended for refusal, however, members acceptance and consideration that there are no issues in relation to the access and the highway has fallen away from the officer’s recommendation due to the fact that they are minded of the resolution of the committee. He added that the application has been brought back to the committee in relation to the impact on the Listed Building because of the consistencies with the previous application.

Matthew Leigh added that only those members who were present at that meeting can take part in any discussion or voting.

Kimberley Crow presented an overview of the application to the committee.

The Legal Officer explained that it is important for members to consider the potential harm to the heritage asset of the Listed Building whilst bearing in mind their duty under the Section 62 legislation. She added that members need to consider whether in their view any potential harm to the Listed Building would amount to total loss, substantial harm to the building or its setting, less than substantial harm to the building or its setting or no harm at all.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that there is no harm whatsoever to the Listed Building as the proposed dwelling is located a fair distance from the existing dwelling.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he agrees with Councillor Mrs French and added that he had stated on the previous occasion that the proposed dwelling would cause minimal harm, however, having reread all the reports and associated information he is now of the opinion that there is no harm. He added that he fails to see the similarity between this application and the earlier application which members reconsidered, with this application being for one back land dwelling whereas the other application is for five dwellings and he fails to see what the differences and similarities are. Councillor Benney made the point that he does not believe that the proposal will cause any harm to the Listed Building because of the distance between the two properties.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she had originally considered that there would  ...  view the full minutes text for item P39/25

To agree and sign the confidential minutes of the meeting of  23 July 2025.

The confidential minutes of the meeting of 23 July 2025 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.