To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

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

Mr Wells stated that he welcomes the officer’s recommendation for approval of the application, and thanked the officer for his professional and proactive approach to the proposal. He made the point that the urgent need for affordable housing has been set out in both reports and the proposal sets out to deliver a significant contribution to meeting the requirements.

Mr Wells stated that the proposal also represents the delivery of houses which could potentially satisfy 20% of the 589 dwellings identified as being required in the March area and 62% of the 191 families identified as already being in March, but who are on the waiting list. He stated that the application is for the reserved matters approval for the detail concerning scale, layout, appearance, and landscape only and the officers report provides a clear explanation of the proposals and has concluded that they are acceptable.

Mr Wells stated that the principle of developing the site for 118 dwellings was agreed when outline planning permission was granted, and at that time other matters were considered. He added that detailed technical provisions such as drainage are subject to conditions on the outline planning permission and the applicant has submitted separate applications to discharge those conditions required to be agreed in tandem with the reserved matters application.

Mr Wells stated that the other details with regard to drainage, highways layout, biodiversity, archaeological information and trees and hedges have been worked on with the case officer and the statutory consultees and agreement has been reached on all matters and if approved today then all conditions can be discharged. He added that the developer is seeking to commence development at the earliest opportunity and the applicant is happy to work with the Council and the relevant bodies to ensure this can happen.

Mr Wells stated that members will be aware that viability is a key issue for delivery of development and he expressed the view that members will also recognise and acknowledge that affordable housing cannot always bear the infrastructure contributions which are often otherwise sought from market dwellings. He added that the comments of Cambridgeshire County Council are acknowledged, however, the delivery of affordable housing to significantly breach the supply of housing is a key Government requirement and weight should, therefore, be attributed to the proposal for its high quality development.

Members asked Mr Wells the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton referred to the officers report,  where it makes reference to the access strips which are in place for maintenance of the ditches and it states that the Internal Drainage Board will be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the easement strips, however, he feels that the statement may not be correct. He added that, in his opinion, the area does not comes under the March West and Whitemoor Internal Drainage Board (IDB) remit and he asked Mr Wells whether he has had any discussion or any agreement in writing with the Internal Drainage Board to clarify the maintenance arrangements. Mr Wells stated that there had been some uncertainty as to whether the maintenance would fall under the remit of the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) of the IDB and the details of the drainage are to be agreed by the discharge conditions and the applicant has been in discussions with both agencies to discuss the design of the drainage and the requirement of the easement strip.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she notes the proposal for 118 affordable homes which is welcomed, but she expressed concern over the lack of doctor surgery provision in the March area and she added that she is disappointed to read that the contribution of £42.435 to the Primary Care Trust is being removed. Mr Wells stated that the Council’s policies for affordable housing do not include additional burdens and obligations on them for their delivery. He added that is the position the applicant is taking with regard to the Section 106 discussions currently taking place with the County Council and with officers.

Members asked officers the following questions.

·         Councillor Murphy asked officers to confirm who will be responsible for the maintenance of the open amenity space going forward. David Rowen stated that it is the intention of the developer to assume responsibility of the open space which is stated in the officers report as condition 7 which seeks to put in place the long term maintenance and management of the open space.

·         Councillor Sutton asked officers to clarify the concerns over the easement strips? David Rowen stated that further research has been undertaken with regard to that issue and he added that the watercourse in question is not an IDB watercourse, it is an ordinary watercourse which leads into an IDB watercourse. He added that because of that it has been considered practical that as part of the design of the scheme, to include some form of a 3-metre maintenance strip.  David Rowen stated that with regard to the maintenance of it, it is his understanding that as part of the details submitted with regard to the drainage scheme on the outline permission, that it would be maintained as part of the wider open space and, therefore, maintained by the future management company responsible for the site. Councillor Sutton stated that it is important that when conditions are added to the application it is imperative that the issue surrounding maintenance of the strip is stipulated within any conditions applied.

·         Councillor Sutton asked whether the proposed upgrade and improvements to the Peas Hill roundabout are still due to go ahead? David Rowen stated that the improvements were secured as part of the outline planning permission under condition14 and it still exists and is irrespective of what members conclude when determining the reserved matters proposal before them. Councillor Sutton stated that he is pleased to hear that and he asked what the timeframe is for those works to commence? David Rowen stated that the wording of the condition was prior to the first occupation of any dwelling on the site, the additional approach lane of the Peas Hill roundabout should be provided.

·         Councillor Sutton asked for the position with regard to the provision of places at the local schools in the area? David Rowen stated that as part of the original outline planning approval on the site, Cambridgeshire County Council were consulted, and they required certain education provision to be made. They did not require any contribution to made to the secondary schools at that point of time, which is stated in the current Section 106 Agreement, however, they did require a contribution of £700,000 towards the expansion of the Westwood Early Years facility and also a contribution towards the expansion of Westwood Community Primary School which was in the region of £800,000. David Rowen added that the County Council have made representations in respect of this proposal before members as in their opinion the contributions highlighted in the current Section 106 Agreement should still be secured. 

·         Councillor Connor asked for confirmation with regard to the start date of the construction of the attenuation pond? David Rowen stated that as part of the original outline permission condition number 10 stated that a timetable for a surface water drainage scheme was required and there is a separate submission for the surface water management scheme, which should include the timetable for implementation and will form part of that condition and he added that in a proposal for 118 dwellings officers would look to get some form of attenuation in place before the final dwellings are built. Councillor Connor stated that he would like it in place far sooner to alleviate any risks of flooding.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he notes that in the officers report there is a plan which shows the surface water area and the main ditch, there is a small structure and he asked for assurances that it is a small hydraulic limiter which only allows 3.8 litres of water a second. David Rowen stated that as part of the discharge of condition application in respect of surface water management scheme officers will be taking advice form the LLFA, with regard to surface water, run off and discharge rates and they will advise officers if, with regard to the run off rates into the wider watercourse, is appropriate. He added that the watercourse is a Middle Level Commissioners watercourse and, therefore, they will need to approve the discharge run into their watercourse separately.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has concerns over the possible risk of flooding and she referred to the three episodes of flooding that the Town of March had encountered over recent months. She added that some of the causes of flooding had been as a result of the drainage ditches being filled in without permission and she stated that as part of her work with the County Council, it is the intention that any ditches or dykes that have been filled in without permission, will be re dug out and the charge will be passed back to the owner. Councillor Mrs French added that with regard to the Peas Hill roundabout works, it is the intention of March Area Transport Strategy to approach Central Government with regard to the Levelling Up Fund to see if any of the transport strategies can be completed sooner. She added that it is an expensive project and the developer will need to contribute towards it.  Councillor Mrs French questioned whether the discharge of the surface water will be resolved before any dwellings are built, as she is very concerned over that issue.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he welcomes the development and the homes are much needed. He stated that it is disappointing that some of the Section 106 money is not coming forward, which was agreed in the outline permission, but as policies dictate there is no option but to move forward and he will support the application.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Mrs French andagreed that the application be APPROVED, as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillors Mrs French, Purser and Skoulding declared, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are members of March Town Council, but take no part in planning matters)