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 application was deferred by Planning Committee in October for the following three reasons, to explore access to and from the school, the retention of the fence to the eastern boundary and highway safety and he has sought to address these points. He stated that he has engaged with the Headteacher of Westwood Primary School to discuss the possibility of the access to the school and following these discussions the conclusion was that it would not be feasible, however, within the amended plans there are two potential access points to the school should access be required in the future and it would only need the school to move their boundary fence which is in their ownership.

Mr Conchie added that regarding the eastern boundary fence, national and local planning policies promote access and permeability to adjacent areas and in the adopted Neighbourhood Plan it highlights a shortage of accessible open space in the area and states that the proposed development should reduce the need for use of a car and promotes walking and cycling. He added that given the previous comments made by members the amended site plan retains the fence to the eastern boundary, which will unfortunately increase the walking and cycling distance to the town centre from 1km to 1.5km and increase the distance to the nearest entrance to the primary school, and reduce the accessibility to the open space for future residents.

Mr Conchie stated that regarding highway safety, additional personal injury accident data has been obtained from the County Council, which contains data up to July 2020, which is the most up to date information held. He added that the information details 9 collisions over a 6-year period, with only 1 being serious and none were fatal, and the County Council have confirmed that the accident data does not highlight any clusters, there are no March Area Transport Study surveys available that are relevant to the proposed development and have stated that the applicant has provided sufficient data to demonstrate that the development will not have a severe highway impact on the local highway network.

Mr Conchie stated that he has sought to address the three reasons for deferment where he has been able to and he asked the committee to support the application to bring a derelict site into use and provide 50 much needed homes to March.

Members asked Mr Conchie the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she is surprised that the County Council have advised that they do not hold any up to date accident data as she has been the Chairman of the March Area Transport Strategy since September 2017 and there is information available. Councillor Mrs French stated that there are three separate speed reduction schemes being worked on Norwood Road and she disputed the accident data that Mr Conchie had referred to in his presentation. She stated that one bungalow has been hit twice, another dwelling has had several of their vehicles written off more than twice and added that she is aware that the County Council only records serious collisions or fatalities. 

·         Councillor Cornwell asked for confirmation regarding the ownership details of the eastern boundary fence? Mr Conchie stated that as far as he is aware the fence is owned by the applicant, This Land.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he notes that the Headteacher does agree that an access point could be beneficial, but has added that the proposed access point would mean that children would be walking through the foundation outside classrooms. He added that to the east of the site that would be correct, but no consideration has been made to the west of the site, which could easily be made into a cycleway or walkway around the perimeter of the playing field and would come out on the pavement of Maple Grove and he asked why both access points have not been considered. Mr Conchie stated that with regard to the access to the school, he has looked at the boundary that abuts the site and he has proposed two access points at the end of each cul de sac and it is the decision of the school as to whether they wish to adopt one of those. 

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that he is disappointed that there is not going to be a rear access to the school. He added that he is concerned that if the fence is removed it still does not affect the fence on the far eastern side, which is in the ownership of Fenland District Council and has gates within it. Councillor Cornwell added that on one side there will be some established shrubs, which are made into hedges and a fence which has double gates, which remain locked except for access. He asked whether there has been any consultation with the residents in Wake Road has been undertaken by the Planning Department, which forms part of the officer’s recommendation? David Rowen stated that a community consultation exercise has been undertaken with residents, which included several representations from properties in Wake Road. He added that the formation of such linkages is good planning and conforms with the relevant policies regarding creating good quality environments, but stated that if members do not wish for any linkage to be provided then they are able to determine the application minus the second recommended condition. Councillor Cornwell asked for clarification that the residents of Wake Road did not want the area opened up by removal of the fence. David Rowen referred members to page 45 of their agenda pack where it states the concerns and views raised by residents regarding the fence. Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that now that has been highlighted it is apparent that the residents appear to have concerns over the quality of their life through removal of the fence.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked the Highways Officer, Alex Woolnough, why as a Highway Authority they are content with the fence being removed? Alex Woolnough stated that he has no preference on whether the fence is removed to Wake Road, but if there is a desire to form a link through to Wake Road, then there is no reason why a footpath connection could not be formed and a adoptable link constructed to link the development up with Wake Road, but that would be a policy decision for the Planning Team to decide.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether there is the possibility of a Section 38 bond being entered into to negate the potential difficulties that have been encountered in other areas of March? Alex Woolnough stated that contained within his list of conditions there is a condition which requires the developer to inform the Planning Authority whether they are going to enter into a Section 38 or whether they will be going down the private management route prior to commencement on site. Councillor Mrs French asked whether consideration would be given to adopt the road when the road is complete? Alex Woolnough stated that the Highway Authority cannot stop the developer from keeping the road in private ownership, but they can request that the construction is bituminised to an adoptable standard.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he notes that the Highway Authority do have concerns over the shared access should there be footpath/cycleway link and asked whether that opinion is because the short stretch of road is not up to an adoptable standard and would that opinion change if it was made up to an adoptable standard? Alex Woolnough expressed the opinion that if there is a preference for a link to be formed at this stage, there is the opportunity now to form a separate footpath to form a link to the school or to Wake Road and he added that if there is that opportunity, then why not provide the footpath, rather than rely on a shared surface carriageway to provide pedestrian access.

·         Councillor Marks stated that, with regard to the access along Norwood Road, there is an issue with parked vehicles on one side and he asked whether there is any provision in place to include double yellow lines for dustcarts to enter and excess the site? Alex Woolnough stated that there is no requirement to include any yellow lines, but as soon as a junction is formed, vehicles should not park within ten metres of that junction and, therefore, any enforcement required will be a Police matter.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that Fenland District Council are carrying out a civil parking enforcement consultation currently and a draft document should be available by the end of the year.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she will support the application provided that the fence in Wake Road is retained.

·         Councillor Skoulding agreed with the comment made by Councillor Mrs French and stated that the fence acts as a deterrent from the anti-social behaviour problems which have caused concern over previous years.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he still has an issue with regard to the cycleway and added that, at certain times of the day, there is dreadful congestion and a cycleway around the perimeter would improve the whole development.

·         Councillor Cormwell stated that the retention of the eastern boundary fence is essential for the residents of the Wake Road area. He added that he agrees with Councillor Sutton and added that the application could have been enhanced by insisting on a back entrance. He stated that he will support the application, but only with the retention of the fence.

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

(Councillors Connor and Mrs French both declared an interest as they are both elected members of Cambridgeshire County Council, but have had no involvement with This Land)