Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Andrew Hodgson, the Agent.

Mr Hodgson stated that the scheme benefits from outline planning permission, which was granted in 2018 and the reason the application is brought before the committee is due to an objection from March Town Council, however, in his opinion, the Town Council may not be aware that the outline permission already exists due to the comments that they have made. He stated that the Town Council have raised concerns over access, however, the access in detail has already been agreed, it has also cited the proposal as overdevelopment of the site, however, the principal of development for 9 units has already been agreed and it has also stated a concern with regard to trying to avoid social housing, however, this appears to contradict their concerns of overdevelopment, due to the fact that if there had been an element of social housing then there would have been more than 9 units, which would have made the site more dense.

Mr Hodgson stated that the reason that he did not proceed with the reserved matters application was due to the fact that previously there was some land to the rear of 22 Knights End Road, where a land swap was going to take place to make the alignment of the access slightly different, but this did not happen and, therefore, the red line had to be altered at the rear of number 22 and this is the only change to the original outline scheme. He added that there are 3 bungalows on the site, there is no overbearing impact and all plots will be of a decent size and of a good design.

Members asked Mr Hodgson the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked what the purpose is with the regard to the retention of one of the buildings highlighted on the presentation? Mr Hodgson explained that the building was outside of the red line and referred to the presentation screen where the building being retained is being kept by the owner of the land and does not form part of the application. Councillor Mrs French stated that she does not believe that the Town Council were aware that the application already had outline planning permission and she does not have any objection to the layout. She added that she presumes that the developer is going to realign the public footpath and Mr Hodgson confirmed that it does form part of their proposal. Councillor Mrs French stated that she hopes that the building that is being retained will not form part of a later proposal, which will mean that the 9 units will be exceeded.

·         Councillor Meekins stated that he notices some of the buildings to be demolished appear to be constructed of asbestos and he asked whether this will be removed and disposed of appropriately? Mr Hodgson confirmed that any necessary works will be carried out under a special licence for the safe removal of asbestos material.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that he has a concern that the road will be used as an entrance to March West, the applicant may have an interest to spread further into the west of the site at some point and the access into the new development is not entirely suitable to take an extension to the development at some stage in the future due to the way that it comes out onto the convoluted junction. He asked whether there was anything that could be put in place to control that use in the future? David Rowen stated that the application before members is for 9 dwellings and should an application come forward for any further development in the future then that will be assessed on its own merits at that time.

·         Councillor Sutton asked for clarification that the application is for a full application as there appears to be a typographical error. David Rowen confirmed that it is for a full application.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that on the aerial photo on page 77, it shows a visibility splay on the left-hand side, when exiting the site. but it shows no ownership of a visibility splay on the right-hand side and he asked whether the visibility will be affected through non ownership of the land? David Rowen stated that it has been considered by the Highway Authority and they have raised no issue or concern with the visibility splay.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that with regard to the drainage ditch he has noted that there is no access for the maintenance ditch on the site side and this should have been brought to the attention of the designers of the site to ensure that maintenance of the ditch is achievable. He added that currently it can be maintained from the west side, but this may not be the case when that area is built out. David Rowen stated that currently there is agricultural land to the west and, therefore, it would be unreasonable to seek a redesign of the application site, but it is a valid point and should any application come forward for the land on the west then that will be taken into consideration at this time.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that, regarding riparian ownership, going forward could a note be added to a decision notice to state that once the plots are sold then the owner has part responsibility for the maintenance of the ditch and he asked for consideration to be given to this. Stephen Turnbull stated that the only way this could be considered is by adding something to the informative on the planning decision and he will investigate this further.

·         Councillor Cornwell highlighted that this application is in a high ground area and as far as he is aware it is not in an internal drainage board area and it is not part of the ancient primary watercourse that runs further north from this site.

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