Agenda item

To determine the application.

The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04)) during its deliberations.

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

Members received a presentation in objection to the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mark Frost.

Mark Frost thanked members for the opportunity to speak at today’s meeting and explained that he has been a resident of Berryfield for fifteen years. He stated that residents had been given an undertaking that the development would be in-keeping with the current estate and would include an extension to the open space. He stated that this proposal is not in-keeping with existing properties in Berryfield and there is no provision for open space.

He stated that the lack of open space will cause issues for residents of the new development as their children will have nowhere to play safely and stated that children living on the estate would have to walk quite a distance to get to open space. He added that there will be further danger as the proposed development will not benefit from a pavement extension of the existing footpath. Pedestrians will be required to walk in the road to access the site and the road is unlikely to be adopted which can cause a number of issues with street lighting and refuse collection as well as access for the farmer to his adjacent field.

He informed members that the applicants had provided false information in their original planning application as they do benefit from full access to the site from Berryfield and urged members and officers to look into this further.

Mark Frost stated that residents are extremely concerned at the flooding risk to the development and highlighted that there had already been incidents of sewage coming out of drain covers on-site. He stated that should a flood or incident occur once the development is complete; the Council will be held accountable by residents. He stated that current residents on the estate should be protected from disruption during the construction period and asked that if planning permission is granted, a traffic management plan must be implemented to allow residents to enter and exit their homes safely. He stated that the road is already heavily congested with parked vehicles and will only worsen once construction vehicles are on-site. 

He disputed the applicant’s claims that the site currently has no wildlife inhabiting it and diseased ash trees and said this is completely untrue. He said subsoil on the development has been exposed for almost a year and this has led to many species of wildlife on-site which will need further investigation. He stated that the site was due to be fenced off however this has still not been done and as a result is often victim of trespassers. 

He concluded that the development does not provide anything to the community and asked members to refuse the application today.

Members had no questions for Mark Frost.

Members received a presentation in objection to the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Graham Moore (Middle Level Commisioners).

Graham Moore thanked members for the opportunity to speak at today’s meeting on behalf of March Middle Level Commissioners (the Board). He said whilst the Board are not opposed to the principle of development; they are concerned about the water level and flood risk aspect and want to ensure a suitable scheme is in place to minimise flood risk. He stated that drainage is a key element that ultimately will determine the layout of a site and unfortunately is often an afterthought. Whilst he noted that the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) has no objections to the proposal, they may not be totally aware of the issues that remain silence. The ownership, extent and capacity of the proposed sewer system are not known and it is understood that only Highway water is allowed to discharge into it. He asked where the water from the proposed development will go if this is the case.

Graham Moore stated that the surface water drainage solution is to be offered to Anglian Water for adoption which usually requires the discharge to be into a system that is the responsibility of a suitable authority. In the longer term the tanks may be subject to infiltration due to the high-ground water table which in turn, may reduce its storage capacity. He stated that members should also note that the actual discharge from the site may still be many times that received currently, which in turn will increase the costs much of which is paid by special levies. It is proposed that the road will be used to store surface water during extreme events and he questioned if this was the best solution. He said it is in the interest of all, especially rate-payers, to resolve this issue now rather than later in the process.

He said that the Board concludes that there are many unresolved issues which may affect the proposed layout and suggest that this application be deferred until these matters are resolved. He urged the applicant to discuss these matters with the Board before proceeding any further.

Members had no questions for Graham Moore.

Members received a presentation in objection to the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Councillor Cornwell.

Councillor Cornwell explained that he had not objected to the outline planning application for the site as it had been promised that the layout would be appropriate with a suitable provision for drainage, infrastructure and dwelling quality however unfortunately, these have disappeared. He explained that the development extends an original ‘Allison’ estate which is known for its dwelling size, space and quality however he does not believe the proposal delivers this.

He stated that whilst the site is located within Flood Zone 1 it is immediately adjacent to a narrow strip of Flood Zone 2 which is followed by a larger expanse of Flood Zone 3, both of which are drained by the March Fifth Drainage Commissioners existing infrastructure. He highlighted that the site is considerably lower than Berryfield which is confirmed by the proposal to use a foul sewer pump to lift it to the level of the existing sewer.

He reiterated that the current site already suffers from very wet conditions and the current farmer is only able to grow crops that can be harvested before autumn and winter wetter seasons begins. He stated that increased and quicker run-off from the development will further add to this problem and lead to an increase in costs to the Commissioners as well as increased system demand and maintenance. He asked members to note that whilst the developer will initially make a substantial contribution towards this, if they are not managed correctly the Council and ultimately the tax payer will have to fund the additional costs.

Councillor Cornwell stated that members are being asked to approve a development which simply cannot be approved by the drainage authority and is therefore undeliverable. He stated that these issues need addressing however pre-drainage advice has been offered to the applicant since 2015 but never taken up. He added that the plan does not show the access to a private drain from Elm Road, March which crosses the site and will need to be relocated as a result of the proposed layout. He stated that there are limits on the capability of the existing system to take increased flow and using the road as an open sustainable drainage system (SuDS) feature is not acceptable and will not comply with LP2 (Health & Wellbeing) of the Local Plan. He highlighted to members that the LLFA have stated their disappointment at the lack of space for open SuDS features too.

Councillor Cornwell stated that the report fails to mention the proven presence of Radon Gas and associated monitoring equipment situated on the site. He stated that they are not included on the plan but provisions must be made to either relocate them or accommodate them within the proposal.

Referencing 10.3 of the report, he asked if the break in footpath would hinder adoption of the road by Highways and whether a revised layout can produce safer access to the site. He also questioned 10.5 of the report which refers to the design relationship with Station Road, March and asked why this is relevant as Station Road is located approximately a mile away from the site.

He concluded by reiterating that the site suffers from a number and mixture of issues, some of which can be resolved and some that are more difficult. He said there was little point members approving the application for a site that currently cannot be delivered. He stated that refusing this application will afford time for everyone involved to work together to produce a safe, quality, enjoyable and appropriate development for the town.

Members had no questions for Councillor Cornwell.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Gareth Edwards (Agent).

Gareth Edwards thanked members for the opportunity to speak in support of this application. He explained that outline planning permission had been granted for 30 dwellings however this has now been reduced to 28 and following discussions, officers recommend approval of the application.

He explained that the original application had included the allocation of S106 funding for open space however following a viability assessment this is no longer possible. Instead, the applicant is willing to contribute £10,000 to an off-site open space provision. He stated that the application is for traditional 3, 4 and 5 bedroom dwellings and the development will not appear out of scale to the existing development. He assured members that drainage proposals are underway and will form part of the application to discharge conditions following approval of this application.

He informed members that a viability assessment had shown a deficit of £105,000 following archaeological investigations however this concluded no further works are required. He asked members to support the officer’s recommendation and the associated conditions.

Members asked Gareth Edwards the following questions;

1.    Councillor Meekins asked for clarification regarding the contribution to an off-site play provision and stated that £10,000 is a low figure for a development of this scale. Gareth Edwards explained that the original application required no provision for an on-site open space but following a viability assessment, the applicant has made a token contribution of £10,000 to an off-site play area.

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

1.    Councillor Hay referenced the update report circulated and asked for confirmation that Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) are in support of the application. David Rowen confirmed that no objections had been received from CCC.

2.    Councillor Benney raised concern in relation to the drainage issues and asked what can be done to ensure that the development benefits from the correct drainage system. David Rowen confirmed that there is a condition attached to the outline planning permission which requires a detailed surface water drainage scheme to be submitted and approved.

3.    David Rowen reminded members that the Reserved Matters approval sits under the original Outline Planning Permission and any controls in place under the Outline Planning Permission are still in existence. He added that it is not uncommon for planning permission to be granted where there are other outstanding statutory or legal approvals required. He stated that if Middle Level are not happy with the proposal, this can be dealt with separately under their regulations. He stated that officers are satisfied that the controls in respect of drainage are in place and it would be down to the applicant and consultants to design an appropriate scheme.

4.    Councillor Murphy referenced that in 5.1 of the report, it states that if the application is approved, March Town Council request a contribution of £10,000 per property towards the provision of Estover Playing Field. He asked officers if there is a legal requirement for this. David Rowen explained that Item 7 of the agenda will cover this further but confirmed that S106 requirements must be policy-based and he is not aware of a policy that would support this level of contribution.

5.    Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that she is not comfortable with the drainage issues on site and is further concerned that the off-site open space provision is not viable as open space is required closer to the development.

6.    Councillor Sutton agreed that the application is controversial however reiterated that the Outline Planning Permission has the appropriate conditions attached to it which either will or won’t satisfy the relevant bodies. The application today is to decide if the layout is appropriate. In relation to open spaces, he highlighted that the site is located within close proximity of Estover Playing Field and supported officer’s recommendation.

7.    Councillor Benney asked if it was possible to add a condition in relation to a Traffic Management Plan being implemented on site. David Rowen explained that unfortunately this condition is not included in the Outline Planning Permission and cannot be added although there is other legislation in place to ensure safety arrangements are in place on building sites.

8.    Councillor Lynn asked for further information on the lack of pathway in to the development. David Rowen explained a path is shown on the plans, and if there is a lack of path this would be down to land ownership issues however there is a condition attached to the Outline Planning Permission which requires full details of road and footpath layout to be submitted and approved.

9.    Councillor Hay stated that all planning permissions should include a condition relating to Traffic Management Plans. David Rowen explained that the Outline Planning Permission was granted in 2014/15 and was not common practise at that time. He reiterated that there is separate legislation in place for the management of building sites.

10.Councillor Meekins stated that he has concerns in relation to drainage on the site and asked what the implications would be for refusing planning permission based on this. Nick Harding reminded members that drainage is not a matter for consideration as part of this planning application and conditions are already in place in the Outline Planning Permission to resolve this.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Hay and decided that the application be APPROVED; as per officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Mrs Mayor abstained from voting)