Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 14 December 2022

The minutes of the previous meeting of the 14 December 2022 were agreed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated.

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 Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey stated that he would like to thank officers for working with him to bring forward an acceptable scheme and a recommendation for approval.

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

·       Councillor Sutton made the point that it is nice to hear that officers have worked with the agent to bring an acceptable scheme forward which he will be happy to support.

·       Councillor Murphy expressed the view that he can see nothing wrong with the application and he will be supporting it.

·       Councillor Cornwell expressed the opinion that the application is very good, adding that it is nice to see how the officers have worked with the agent and developer and he will be happy to support it.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she also agrees that it is a good application and that David Rowen had explained that there were no Section 106 contributions, however, she notes from the report at 5.26 it refers to £150,000 contribution to education, and she asked for clarity on that point. David Rowen stated that notwithstanding what the County Council may have requested in terms of an education contribution and given that the application has been through the viability assessment, there is no Section 106 in place for education. Councillor Mrs French stated that she is aware that the County Council can request it but there is not a statutory duty to pay it.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Mrs Mayor and agreed that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation.

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated.

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 Adam Jackson, the agent. Mr Jackson explained that his client is a property holding investment company and they own the land depicted within the red line and the additional land which surrounds the site and is edged in blue on the location plan. He added that within the blue land there is an existing building which contains 10 existing commercial units which his client currently lets and he has advised him that they are fully let and there is a successful history of letting in that area.

Mr Jackson stated that the proposal includes seven new commercial units and six of them are situated in a terrace along the west of the site and one at the entrance to the site on the eastern boundary which is planned to operate as a café. He explained that the café would serve the development and the local commercial estate and the other six units at the rear of the site were planned as a Planning Class Use E which will provide the range of permitted uses within the use class.

Mr Jackson stated that having owned and rented the ten units adjacent to the application site for many years along with holding further properties within the area, the applicant has an accurate knowledge of local market forces and has consequently and confidently invested in the planning application and if approved the units will be constructed quickly and then rented out, with, in his view, the café being a worthwhile addition to the area. He made reference to the Planning Officer’s comments and expressed the opinion that the primary reason for the recommendation of refusal is due to the planning use class that has been chosen for the new buildings and the amount of floor space for this use together with the lack of supporting documentation including the sequential test to prove that the new development will not prejudice or cause any harm to the town centre.

Mr Jackson stated that Council’s adopted Local Plan refers to an out-of-date National Planning Use Class Order which was revised three years ago, with the Council’s emerging Local Plan correctly recognising and including the new class order and he explained that it is the new class order and the emerging Local Plan which has been chosen to nominate the use for the proposed buildings. He made the point that the Council’s emerging Local Plan at LP40 allocates the site within a land allocation zone of 40.01, with development proposals that fall into this area and form being for use classes B and E and there is no specific subdivision of the Class E Use and, in  ...  view the full minutes text for item P93/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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  Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall explained that the site was largely completed in 2021 and the properties were occupied, however, since that time one of the dwellings has been resold. He added that is a private block paved driveway and he made reference to the Public Access system which details comments to make the point that there is not enough on-site parking.

Mr Hall made the point that the development was approved in 2018 and still meets the parking standards requested by the adopted Local Plan and, in his opinion, that by not setting the turning head it will not impact the on-site parking. He added that the applicant can provide further replacement of the trees as detailed in the officer’s report which will accord with the neighbour’s comments.

Mr Hall stated that one of the two objections received has raised concern regarding a brick boundary wall being demolished, however, there are no walls to be demolished as part of the proposal. He made reference to the officer’s report and stated that as part of the officer’s report it details an approved site plan of the original development, however, the site plan that was approved under the discharge of conditions application shows the bin lorry reversing into the site and this was commented on by the Highway Authority and Environmental Services and their comments are available on the Public Access system.

Mr Hall made the point that, prior to any works commencing on the site, the drawing clearly shows as part of the discharge of conditions application the lorry reversing into the site and as part of the application the applicant provided an indemnity with regards to damage to the private block paved driveway and the applicant still owns the road. He stated that he has an email from the Environment Services Manager, Adam Pratt, which also states that his drawing originally showed the swept path for the bin lorry was from Gaul Road into the private driveway of the site and the email also states that the bin lorry does not turn in the site and collections would not be affected by removing the turning head.

Mr Hall explained that the swept path provided as part of the application shows that a 6.6 metre long vehicle could enter the site and turn without the turning head and he explained that a typical Amazon delivery van is less than this at 6.3 metres long and a typical Sainsburys Sprinter delivery vehicle is 6 metres long. He stated that Environment Services have confirmed that they do not enter the site since the development was completed nearly two years ago and they will not use the turning head.

Mr Hall made the pointe  ...  view the full minutes text for item P94/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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 Shanna Jackson, the agent and from Andy Sewell, the applicant. Mrs Jackson explained that the proposal is for the construction of two buildings to accommodate an established building contractor’s business and the associated office. She stated that the business is a family run local enterprise and the proposal will allow the applicant to work from his home at Park House.

Mrs Jackson stated that the applicant is keen to invest in the business but is unable to do so in the rented accommodation which he currently operates from and the proposal site offers an excellent opportunity to provide bespoke buildings which meet the specific needs of the enterprise to secure the long-term viability and for it to be retained within the local area, with 75% of the staff who are employed by the applicant are from around Wisbech. She explained that the size and height of the buildings have been calculated to be specific in order to meet the exact needs of the business and she has worked closely with a Conservation specialist to ensure that the buildings have very little impact, with them being single storey and positioned approximately 50 metres away from Park House behind a brick wall.

Mrs Jackson expressed the opinion that the buildings will not dominate any views or harm the setting of the Listed Building and the buildings are set well back within the site and will be screened from the front and side by the existing frontage trees and forest to the east and will, therefore, have no harmful visual impact on the visual amenities of the countryside. She explained that the nature of the business does not provide for semi-industrial activity and the site will primarily function as an administrative hub and a base for vehicles and equipment in between jobs.

Mrs Jackson made reference to the history of the wider site which included the residential conversions of the barns which were originally associated with Park House and the barns which have now been converted are in separate ownerships. She stated that in effect the proposal before members would replace the barns so that Park House would again benefit from associated barns which would typically be expected of a building of this nature and explained that the previous use of the site was for the storage of stock cars and there is evidence to show that they were on the land until 2020 which proves that there has been recent commercial activity on the land.

Mrs Jackson stated that Section 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) supports the rural economy and recognises that sites to meet local business needs in rural areas may need to be found beyond existing settlements. She explained that  ...  view the full minutes text for item P95/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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 Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that there are no technical objections from any of the consultees, Highways, Environment Agency, March Town Council, Environmental Health or the Wildlife Officer. He stated that one of the key points is the access and the Highways Authority have not objected and down this section of West End there is already street lighting, and the proposal allows for onsite parking for both the existing and proposed dwelling.

Mr Hall explained that where any dwelling would all be in Flood Zone 1 and the Environment Agency have not objected. He stated that it does not detail in the officer’s report that he has spoken to the officer and advised even though the proposal shown is indicative and a 2-storey small family house, it could be reduced to one and half storey if this would help which is what the property to the west is and the property to the east is 2 storey.

Mr Hall pointed out that within the officer’s reportunder 10.12 and 10.13 it advises there would be limited impacts of overshadowing and overlooking from this indicative proposal and to assist the applicant is happy to have a condition imposed regarding the submission of a construction phase plan to be agreed with officers. He reiterated that there are no technical objections to this application and the site is within the built-up form of March, in Flood Zone 1, and there is no objection from Highways.

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

·       Councillor Skoulding stated that officers have expressed the view that the proposal is squashed in, however, that could be said for every house in West End as they are all the same and he cannot see any problem with the application.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she knows the area exceptionally well and there are so many different designs of dwellings in West End some of which date back to the 1600’s. She added that there is a mixture of large and small dwellings, and she does not see any reason to refuse the proposal. Councillor Mrs French made the point that she agrees that the proposal should be a one and a half storey dwelling and not two storey. She stated that it is a beautiful walk, and it is amazing to see some of the houses, which the residents who live there call the ‘Gem of March’.

·       Councillor Sutton disagreed, making the point that it is a single track and barely a cycleway and to consider more traffic down there, in his opinion, is ridiculous. He stated that whilst there may be a mixture of different styles and sizes of dwellings down there, it is  ...  view the full minutes text for item P96/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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 asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that there had been some discussion concerning the statement that the design of this monstrosity was acceptable, and he asked whether there was any possibility that the housing of the substation could be made to look a little bit like the Boathouse rather than a brick-built structure with a flat roof. He added he would prefer to see a more modern finish on the structure which could be timber so that it actually fits in with the surroundings rather than it being a brick-built eyesore. Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that he has no problems with the electricity substation itself, but he would like to see it sited so that it fits in with the award-winning design namely The Boathouse that it will be next door to. David Rowen stated that condition 2 that is recommended does explain the full details of the materials to be used for the external walls to be submitted and approved in writing before the substation is built and if members request a higher standard of materials that is something that could be potentially added as an informative on the decision notice, however, he does not think that it would be possible to be too prescriptive about that as there are safety issues to be considered.

·       Councillor Cornwell made the point that wood can catch fire and the safety elements of the proposal do need to be considered and he would consider brickwork in this case.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that in terms of cladding it would make no difference to the fire risk because the fire protection and fire risk would be the brick part and with regards to cladding that will make no difference if the substation catches fire.

·       Nick Harding stated that the concern that officers have is that there may well be a specification that the electricity company has to work to which would then prevent doing all the additional elements to it and as David Rowen has stated officers would see if members wishes are feasible but there can be no guarantee. He added that in terms of the railings around the block, if there is a particular style of railings used in the promenade area at The Boathouse then consideration could possibly be given to replicate that design for the substation in the informative with the permission if it is granted.

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

·       Councillor Murphy stated that he does not see the point of debating this proposal as it needs to be on site and is supposed to be there and it is required for any possible future development in the vicinity. He added there is nothing wrong with it and substations are in place all over the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P97/22