Agenda item

To determine the application.

Hayleigh Parker–Haines 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 the application is for 15 dwellings, and a previous scheme was presented to the committee last year which was for 18 dwellings alongside balancing ponds and areas of public open space. She explained that the application was refused for two reasons including a failure to satisfy a sequential test in terms of flood risk and the absence of the biodiversity net gain information but that the principle of development, the overall design approach and matters relating to surface water drainage were all found to be acceptable.

Ms Penney added that the reasons for refusal have been considered, and a revised scheme has been submitted which addresses the concerns highlighted, making the point that the development is located entirely in Flood Zone 1 removing the requirement for a sequential test and ensuring the full compliance with both the local and national flood risk policies. She explained that both the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Environment Agency have raised no objections which, in her view, means that flood risk matters have been satisfactorily addressed.

Ms Penney explained that the application has also been accompanied by a preliminary ecological appraisal and a biodiversity net gain report and metric which have been reviewed by the Council’s Ecologist and have been accepted with appropriate conditions recommended, therefore, the previous reason for refusal relating to biodiversity has now been fully overcome. She added that all outstanding issues arising from the earlier refusal have now been resolved and the application is capable of being supported and will deliver much needed housing in a primary market town with excellent sustainable transport links and the prospect of imminent delivery.

Members asked Ms Penney the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed concern that there is a lack of Section 106 contributions and no affordable housing attributed to the application and she questioned who is going to contribute towards the schools and GP services? She added that there are likely to be at least 35 residents plus children who will requires education facilities as well as doctors and dentists and she questioned who is going to pay for those services? Councillor Mrs French stated that she does not think it is fair for the Local Authority to have to pick up the additional costs when the applicant will be making money. Ms Penney stated that she appreciates and understands the point made by Councillor Mrs French, however, the difficulty is that as the parcel of land is very large, and due to the flood risk constraints, only a third of the piece of land is developable which is making the proposal as only just being viable. She expressed the view that it should not be a cost for the Local Authority to have to pick up but there are no funds available which is regrettable.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he agrees with the point made by Councillor Mrs French. He added that there are 15 dwellings proposed in a market town and there is no inclusion of affordable housing or Section 106 contributions which is very disappointing.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that the site has already has development which has been built out and there was a management plan included at that time. She explained that when that was built out, she had cause to attend the site repeatedly with regards to issues being caused due to mud on the road and made the point that should the application be approved it is essential that a strong management plan is included. Councillor Connor added that he attended the site on numerous occasions and met with residents due to parking on the path as well as mud on the road and pavements which residents were having to endure. He made the point that he notes that one of the proposed conditions is for a wheel wash facility but, in his view, that condition needs to be strengthened and needs to include a sweeper on site as well. Matthew Leigh stated that the condition officers are imposing is a standard condition and he understands that there may well have been issues on a previous development but that is not a reason to look to go beyond that as part of this. He added that obviously the construction management statement and the plan would require that mud is not on the road and if that becomes apparent then the developers will be contacted and have to ensure it is cleaned. Matthew Leigh expressed the view that he is not convinced that by imposing a condition requiring a sweeper to be available would be proportionate for a 15 dwelling unit and is not something that is normally requested. He added to go above and beyond the standard condition there would need to be some specific reason relevant to this planning application rather than the harm that has happened previously.

·       Councillor Connor stated that the standard condition was included on the previous application, but it was not adhered to resulting in complaints to the Council but until he attended the site along with Councillor Mrs French no action was taken. He stated that he would like some reassurance and comfort that if there is only a wheel wash condition then it will be monitored. Matthew Leigh stated that if the condition was not adhered to previously that would be a separate matter to what is being requested with this application. He added that by stating that there is the need to provide a strong condition with this application, in his opinion, is a bit paradoxical because if the harm was from not complying to a condition, then why would a more robust condition mean that the developer would be compliant. Matthew Leigh added that the officer’s report does deal with the control of emissions of dust and dirt during construction and, therefore, should a breach happen then this is an enforcement breach but whether or not they comply with the condition is a separate matter to what the wording of the actual condition is. He added that he feels that the frustration was with the previous application and that appears to be more to do with compliance rather than the actual condition.

·       Councillor Connor added that he does have sympathy with what officers are saying but there were vehicles parked on the side of the road and lorries delivering were going onto the path as well. He stated that he would like some comfort for a sweeper to be there once a week, which he would be happy with, but he does want the residents’ concerns to be taken into consideration. Matthew Leigh stated that by having a sweeper on site once a week during construction, in his view, does not necessarily meet the test because having it there once a week is quite arbitrary. He explained that it may mean that there are trades people working inside the dwellings and, therefore, the point is about protecting dirt on the road, and the proposed condition does do that. Matthew Leigh made the point that if a sweeper attends once a week for example and then 5 minutes after that sweeper leaves mud appears on the road then this condition would still resolve that because there is an issue around dirt. He made the point that harm needs to be demonstrated, and the harm appears to have been from not complying with the condition not because the condition was not robust enough originally. Matthew Leigh explained that there is a difference and making the condition more onerous does not mean that the developer will more likely comply with it.

·       Councillor Murphy referred to the large-scale development which took place in Whittlesey which also caused significant problems with regards to mud on the road during development.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she has listened to the points made by officers and is not requesting that a sweeper is on site all day every day. She recalled an incident in December where she had to contact Matthew Leigh where the same issue arose in The Avenue as the roads were absolutely appalling and there is the same problem in Upwell Road and when there is mud on the road and it starts to rain it becomes treacherous. Councillor Mrs French made the point that why should the residents who live in Berryfield and Burnet Gardens have to put up with any more of this mess that is happening because they are driving through it and walking through this mud as well which then goes into their houses. She stated that there is no reason to refuse the application, but it does need to be monitored carefully and if enforcement is needed it should not be weeks later when there is a report and has to be dealt with immediately.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she does not think that the committee have any choice other than to approve the application and reluctantly support it but she is really concerned about the state of the roads again and the lack of affordable houses and the lack of section 106.

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

(Councillor Marks declared that he has had previous business dealings with the applicant and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillors Mrs French and Purser declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are members of March Town Council but take no part in planning)