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 Ted Brand, the Agent.

Mr Brand explained that the proposal is for a house, within the curtilage of a bespoke joinery business, for the applicant and his family, which is a much needed for the business and will ensure its future, employment, and prosperity. He referred to the reasons for refusal summarised in the agenda report as there is no ‘demonstration’ that the house would be ‘essential’ for the business and failure of flood risk sequential test, diminishment of the open and underdeveloped character of the area, and is too prominent when viewed from the A141 by-pass and, in his opinion, these reasons do not justify refusal as there have been requests from officers for additional information and no communication until last week when he was informed of the officer recommendation and of the committee date.

Mr Brand stated that in light of the agenda report, his client has provided some additional information, which was forwarded to the officer on Monday, and this information included the fact that the applicant is spending increasing time at the business, way over normal working hours, for meeting customers, manufacturing joinery, deliveries, loading/unloading work vehicle, checking security,  which is having an adverse effect on his wellbeing, family and the business. He added that there are no other available suitable workplace homes in the area and this family business has been established for 45 years, has always been profitable and has a full order book for the year ahead. 

Mr Brand stated that there is no chance of the business closing as the applicant’s wife is employed in the business and his oldest child is to join the business, as an apprentice, on leaving school within 18 months. He added that employment is being created with three of the occupants of the house employed on the site and a condition could restrict the occupation of the dwelling to people employed in the business and their families.

Mr Brand stated that with regards to flood risk, the expert consultant’s site Flood Risk Assessment concludes low risk and the Environment Agency has no objection to this application. He explained when consulted the Middle Level Commissioners had no objection to this scheme, but have yet to comment to the Council, however, the Middle Level Commissioners and his clients have no knowledge of any flooding on this site or nearby, with a drain on the site boundary taking water from the site to the internal drainage board system.

Mr Brand stated that, with regard to the character of the area, the assessment that the character of the area is “open and underdeveloped” and that the views from the A141 by-pass would be “too prominent” have no evidence to support them and are not justified. He presented photographs to the committee and explained Marina Drive forms a very significant group of dwellings and businesses, many of them visible from the by-pass, with the site having a thick hedge on the east (by-pass) side and hedges and trees on the west boundary and the only significant view will be from a small part of Marina Drive.

Mr Brand stated that the scheme, which is supported by March Town Council, will cause no harm, help address climate change and provide much needed, good quality, housing, with there being, in his opinion, no actual, or real, risk of flooding and added that there is no adverse effect on the character or appearance of the area. He explained that the scheme will enhance the local economy, and much needed employment, by allowing a long-established, local business to prosper. In this case, he feels the benefits far outweigh the concerns raised and he urged the committee to approve the application.

Members asked Mr Brand the following questions:

·         Councillor Meekins asked Mr Brand to clarify where the applicant currently lives? Mr Brand stated that the applicant currently lives in Estover Road and his father lives on the site.

·         Councillor Lynn asked Mr Brand to clarify that there was no sequential test submitted? Mr Brand stated that there was no test carried out because there is no real risk of flooding and the Middle Level Commissioners agreed with that fact. He added that although it is Council policy, the scheme was deemed to be in the open countryside, not in March and had a test been carried out it would have failed. Councillor Lynn stated that it may have been helpful to have seen the results of a test and asked whether there was a reason that the access was not included directly onto Marina Drive. Mr Brand stated that the application is to enhance the business and does not include that element.

·         Councillor Marks asked for clarity that the applicant’s father lives on the site already and the applicant will be living in the proposed dwelling? Mr Brand confirmed this to be the case. Councillor Marks stated that Mr Brand has said that there has been no flooding close by and highlighted that the grass field adjacent to Foxs Marina quite often appears to suffer from flooding and asked Mr Brand to clarify the point he made with regard to not flooding locally? Mr Brand stated he meant on the site or on any land adjacent to the site, with all the land to the north being owned by the applicant’s family and as far as he is aware neither has the area to the other side of Marina Drive, including the field with a caravan on by the allotments.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that the frontage of the main site down to the bypass on Whittlesey Road contains very large main drains and the water does drain off into there. He asked for clarity as to whether there is no intention of having an access off Marina Drive onto the plot as he feels that one of the problems of building alongside that part of the bypass is that there is no way of accessing the town unless you use a vehicle, although there is a so called footpath at the bottom of Marina Drive immediately adjacent to the plot, which is so unsuitable for pedestrians to use, he cannot understand why the County Council have never blocked it off as it is dangerous and asked whether there is anyway to exit the site without using a vehicle. Mr Brand stated it is about half a mile to walk to the local supermarket and added that if that is a concern then a condition requiring any access would be acceptable. Councillor Cornwell highlighted that there have been many applications refused for the old public house site, which is close by, because it is almost impossible to cross the bypass due to traffic issues and if applications are refused for that site then why should this application not be turned down based purely on the constant need for vehicles to access and egress the property. Mr Brand stated that the applicant has to drive three miles to and from the application site to his current home and, therefore, the amount of traffic would be reduced. Councillor Cornwell reiterated that his concern is there is no provision for safe pedestrian egress or access to the property.

·         Councillor Skoulding stated that before the bypass was constructed it was Peas Hill all the way to Whittlesey Road, which historically never flooded and when the bypass was built, it cut Peas Hill in half and that is why it became Marina Drive. He added that the footpath that Councillor Cornwell had referred to was introduced by the County Council when they built the bypass.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she knows the Whittlesey Road very well, adding that with regard to the flooding issues that have caused concern in recent weeks, this particular area being discussed today has not actually flooded which she finds surprising. She referred to the extremely large drain that Councillor Cornwell had referred to which helps to alleviate the risk of flooding. Councillor Mrs French referred to officer’s report at 5.3 and 5.4, where it states that there have been no environmental objections concerning flooding and to the presentation screen where a picture had been taken from Whittlesey Road where houses and businesses are sited, including a couple of new dwellings and there is also a garage and MOT testing centre and she is surprised that it states in the report that it will be detrimental to the A141, as there are many houses on the A141, which, in her opinion, are not detrimental to that road. She expressed the opinion that the applicant’s family business has been operating for 30 or 40 years and the family wish to continue the business and, in her view, the proposal is for a nice house and people are entitled to nice houses if they can afford it and this will go towards supporting local businesses. Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that the country is currently starting economic recovery following the Covid 19 pandemic and this proposal is ideal for doing that. She stated that the residents who live in Foxs Boatyard walk to the local supermarket and there is a public footpath there and, in her opinion, this application should be supported and local businesses should be supported. She expressed the view that the state of Marina Drive is appalling and it would not be right to insist that access should be by that road as it is in a dreadful state.

·         Councillor Cornwell referred to the presentation screen and stated that the photograph shows the width of the plot at Marina Drive and, in his view, he would not like to see an access included from Marina Drive. He added that it is a good viable business and if the application is approved, he is concerned that one of the main reasons cited to turn down development on the old public house site will disappear.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that he is concerned with regard to the refuse collection arrangements, due to the excessive length of the driveway, and stated that would need to be looked into further and also, in his opinion, there should be no access permitted for vehicles at any time onto Marina Drive as it is an area which should be stopped off for pedestrians only.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that Marina Drive is a public highway and there are residents from Foxs Boatyard who already reside there and for that reason it cannot be stopped up. She stated that it is her understanding that Cambridgeshire County Council do intend to resurface it. Councillor Miscandlon stated that he meant that access from the proposed site to Marina Drive should not be allowed and Councillor Mrs French agreed that ideal access would be from the exiting site and not Marina Drive.

·         David Rowen stated that with regard to access from Marina Drive, if members were minded to grant planning permission then a condition could be imposed to prevent any access being taken through Marina Drive in the future. He added that in terms of the principle of the application, and whilst everybody wants to support local business, members need to qualify how the dwelling is essential for the business to operate in the future. He added that, in his experience, most joinery workshops do not have residential elements to them and there are a lot of industrial sites around the district which do not have residential elements to them.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and agreed that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation, with the conditions imposed on the planning permission being agreed in conjunction with the Chairman, Councillor Mrs French and Councillor Skoulding.

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the proposal supports a needed local business, provides security for the business by the applicant living on site, is in a sustainable location, would not have a detrimental impact upon the character and visual amenity of the area and has never suffered from flooding due the large drainage ditch in the vicinity.