Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Adam Conchie, the Agent.

Mr Conchie explained that the land was released by Cambridgeshire County Council to provide much needed quality housing and the revenue generated goes back to support education, health and social care within the community. He added that prior to the submission of the planning application, an engagement exercise was held with the community and there have been two pre application meetings held with officers to assist with the design of the scheme and he has continued to work with officers throughout the progress of the application, being proactive in providing information and any further detail which has been requested.

Mr Conchie expressed the view that the scheme will provide 50, much needed homes that will contribute to the District and County Councils housing requirements with them being in a sustainable location and within walking distance of the town centre and train station. He stated that there will be a mixture of 2,3 and 4 bedroomed dwellings, which have been designed to provide a good standard of accommodation for the future occupants and all meet the national minimum space standards, have substantial sized gardens and provide for minimum car parking standards and the development will be landscaped.

Mr Conchie stated that he is aware that objections to the proposal have been raised with regard to flooding, highways, loss of trees and anti-social behaviour, however, the application has been assessed by  the relevant stakeholders, including the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), Cambridgeshire County Council Highways, Cambridgeshire Police and the Tree Officer at the Council, who have all confirmed that they are satisfied with the proposed development as it meets all the technical and policy requirements. He acknowledged that it is disappointing that the provision of affordable housing is lacking as part of the development, however in accordance with the adoptable policy of LP13, a viability appraisal has been provided to the County Council and District Council who were both in agreement that the scheme is unable to provide any affordable housing as part of the proposal and in his opinion in accordance with planning policy, the lack of the affordable housing does not justify the refusal of the scheme.

Mr Conchie stated that the scheme is well designed, provides much needed homes in a landscaped setting, meets all the technical requirements and will be a welcome addition to the town of March.

Members asked Mr Conchie the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Conchie whether a traffic count assessment had taken place.? Mr Conchie stated that a transport assessment had been carried out, which was submitted as part of the application and County Council have assessed this. Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Conchie whether he was aware of the findings of the March Area Transport Study, regarding the Norwood Road area and the amount of road traffic collisions which have taken place over the last 3 years.? Mr Conchie explained that as part of the transport assessment, the data of the last 5 years regarding accidents would be reviewed.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether the road was going to be adopted by the County Council? Mr Conchie explained that part of the road is going to be adopted to allow refuse vehicles to access the site and service the properties, however some of the roads within the estate will not be adopted.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Conchie to clarify that, if the application is approved, will he be prepared to sign a Section 38 and a Section 278 Highway Works Agreement? Mr Conchie explained that if the road is adopted then they will have to be carried out in accordance with the County Council requirements and the applicant is prepared to undertake those works and sign the necessary documentation.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked Mr Conchie to confirm the width of the entrance road.? Mr Conchie stated that amended plans were submitted to officers which increased the width of the access road in accordance with comments from the County Council. Councillor Mrs Davis asked for confirmation that there are footpaths in the proposal and that there is adequate space for vehicles to pass? Mr Conchie confirmed that there is space for two vehicles to pass and there is the inclusion of footpaths which was at the request of the County Council.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that the eastern border of the site is a fenced border against an area of public open space and he asked for clarity as to whether there is the intention to remove the fence, whilst taking into consideration the reason the fence was erected in the first place. Mr Conchie explained that as part of the application, meetings were held with officers and there is the intention to provide timber bollards along the boundary edge, which will enable the residents to access Wake Road and will provide a secondary means of access for emergency vehicles. Councillor Cornwell questioned whether the fence is owned by the landowner and Mr Conchie stated that the boundary fence forms part of the site and is within their ownership.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that the fence was erected to act as a deterrent for antisocial behaviour, which has been effective and therefore if removed, it could lead to a resurgence of antisocial behaviour. Mr Conchie stated that he can understand the concerns, however, the area of open derelict land could lead to antisocial behaviour, as there are no overlooking issues and by building the dwellings there will be natural surveillance across the highway network and the public open space to the north and east of the site. He added that Cambridgeshire Police have reviewed the proposal and have raised no concerns. Councillor Cornwell stated that the Police have reviewed the site on the historic basis that there has been no antisocial behaviour and they have responded on this basis because there has been no antisocial behaviour since the fence was erected.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that at 10.13 of the officers report the County Council Transport Team have indicated a holding objection as there has been no cycle way or pedestrian way included to access the school and he questioned why this request has not been looked into? Mr Conchie stated that this has not been reviewed as it would only be of benefit to the scheme to access the rear of the school and not a benefit to the wider community. He added that discussions did take place with the school, however, there was not a request from the school for an additional entrance to be included at the rear of the site.

·         Councillor Sutton addressed the query that Councillor Mrs Davis had raised regarding the width of the road and confirmed that it was 5.5 metres and there is a pavement at either side of it which is 1.8 metres.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked why there have been no consultation or contributions with the National Health and the Primary Care Trust? David Rowen stated that the viability assessment has demonstrated that the development cannot deliver any financial contributions, albeit affordable housing or financial contributions towards the NHS or public open space.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that there appears to be slight confusion between 5.3 of the officer’s report where it mentions that the transport team have raised a holding objection and the comments stated at 10.13. David Rowen stated that the Transport Assessment Team still have an outstanding issue in respect of access through the development site to the school, however, the content of the wording at 10.13 is correct in the fact that it is not considered that the lack of the footway link, would be sufficient grounds to refuse the application.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that, with regard to the holding objection from the Transport Team, there does not appear to have been any action taken from officer’s about resolving the issue. He added that he is aware from Mr Conchies presentation that preliminary discussions took place with the school, however, there is no evidence of this mentioned on the Public Access system or within the officer’s report. David Rowen stated that the fact that the issue has not been evidenced on Public Access does not mean that no discussion had been entered into around this issue. The matter was explored, and the rationale was that the school was not insistent on an additional access point at the rear, and therefore it has not been progressed any further.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that at 10.23 of the officer’s report, the fence on the current open space is raised which was erected to stop the antisocial behaviour but there is nothing in the report regarding this issue. He made the point that historically the fence was put in place as a result of considerable antisocial behaviour across the rear of the site and if it is removed it will open up the area and Wake Road to pedestrian access which could then lead to a repeated issue of the antisocial behaviour and he asked officer’s to confirm whether this has been taken into consideration? David Rowen asked for clarification on which fence that Councillor Cornwell was referring to and it was confirmed that it was the fence to the western side of the public open space adjacent to Wake Road. This fence divides the application site from the public open space which is a significant area of waste land that has been vacant for some time which encourages anti-social behaviour and by developing the land, it may overcome the issue. He added that there is the intention for pedestrian access from the site across the open space  to Wake Road, which could be seen as a benefit to the community, allowing movement around the area and the Police have raised no concerns about the development proposed. Nick Harding added that the design of the layout, is such where the residential properties will look towards the open space and therefore levels of surveillance are increased, and the situation has changed which would indicate that a fence would no longer be required.

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he is content with the overall scheme, however, he has concerns over the holding objection from the Transport Team and from his own personal experience he is aware that there are significant traffic issues at the end of the school day and  expressed the opinion that to suggest a walkway and cycle way would not be beneficial to this proposal and to the wider area is wrong. He added that the application needs to be revisited and discussions should take place with the school for them to have further input as he feels the application should include a walkway and a cycle way into the back of the school and as the application stands, he cannot support it. Nick Harding stated that if a gate were to be provided to enable access directly to the school from the development it may attract drivers from outside of the proposal to use the development as a parking area and drop off area for their children. He added that if the committee wish to explore this issue further and if they are happy with the rest of the proposal, he suggested that the committee could give officers delegated authority to approve the application if the primary school confirms that they do not want a secondary means of access via the development to be included.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with Councillor Suttons comments. She added that regarding the discussion concerning the fence, she can confirm that it was erected fifteen years ago for a reason as the residents of Wake Road were subjected with extensive anti-social behaviour and that Councillor Cornwell is correct in his statement that there are no statistics available regarding anti-social behaviour as the issues are historical. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that she would not wish for the fence to be removed which will enable easy public access onto Wake Road.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the Transport Statement dated 8 January and the Transport Technical Notes Statement which was dated 20 February, both statements derived from the Highway Authority and in each documents conclusion, it stated that the County Council requested that the application should not be determined until such time as additional information was submitted and reviewed. She expressed the view that the agent had not addressed her question regarding the results of the traffic survey making the point that March Town Council carried out a traffic survey and over a two week period, the results showed 24,161 vehicles travelled in one direction, from Hundred Road towards Wisbech Road, with a top speed of 82mph in a 30mph area. The second survey carried out was from the 26 February through to 12 March, going in the opposite direction and showed 22,860 vehicles with a top speed of 83mph and she cannot understand why the application is recommended for approval without a proper transport infrastructure. Councillor Mrs French added that she is the Chairman of the March Area Transport Strategy and has been working on the strategy, focusing on 3 schemes for the past two years, but she has been dealing with issues and concerns over the issue of speeding for over 30 years. She made reference to accident  data that she was aware of , including damage to property and vehicles and expressed the opinion that she cannot support the application in its present form, it should be deferred and returned to committee once the concerns and issues have been addressed. She expressed her disappointment that the application does not include any Section 106 contributions and is disappointed that the applicant wishes to build 50 dwellings but is not prepared to include contribution towards the National Health Service or Primary Care Trust.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that he is one of the Ward Councillors for the area and he agrees with the comments made by Councillor Mrs French and Councillor Sutton. He added that twice daily there is significant traffic disruption in Maple Grove and there is the need for a rear access into the school. He feels that enforced parking control measures may alleviate some of the traffic issues, but he cannot support the application in its current format.

·         Nick Harding reiterated his suggestion to members in relation to the inclusion of a second school access and if the school is agreeable to an additional access then the decision could be delegated to officers who in turn would issue a consent. If the applicant was not in agreement with the inclusion of a secondary access, then the application would have to be brought back to the committee. He explained in relation to the concerns raised over the fence, the applicant could be contacted to ascertain whether they would be prepared to leave the fence in place. Nick Harding referred to the County Council’s comments with regard to the secondary pedestrian access for the primary school with their response of the 20 February 20, detailing concerns over an isolated walking route without direct access to the school. He added that regarding accident data, the County Council had stated that the data was acceptable for use and covered the period from September 2014 to September 2019 and there were no concerns raised with regard to trip generation, distribution or queue length surveys. Nick Harding concluded by stating the County Council’s holding objection only relates to the issue of the secondary access by pedestrians as they have stated that they are happy with all other aspects of the application with regard to transportation.

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that she cannot support his suggestion regarding further discussion with the school over secondary access which she feels is a highway issue. She reiterated that the application should be deferred and brought back to the committee when all relevant concerns have been addressed.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that Nick Harding has suggested that the application be delegated to the Head Teacher of the school but that decision should not be down to the current Head Teacher as her view may not be agreeable with her successors in the future. He added that he will recommend that the application be deferred.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that if the application is deferred then the retention of the fence also needs to be considered.

It was proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and AGREED that the application be deferred to seek clarification from the school regarding the Highway Authority’s concerns surrounding secondary access to the school, request for the retention of the fence to Wake Road and to obtain up-to-date data regarding transportation and accidents from the Highways Authority.

(Councillor Mrs French and Councillor Connor both declared an interest by virtue of the fact that they are both elected members of Cambridgeshire County Council but have had no involvement with this land)