Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Mrs French, a District Councillor.  Councillor Mrs French stated that The Chase is a very important part of March to local residents, with the site already having had refusals which were upheld on appeal and nothing has changed since the refusals apart from the fact that 33 Gaul Road has been developed and is now called Magnolia Close.  She expressed the view that during the discussions of the 33 Gaul Road application there were many concerns and objections to the removal of the brick wall that forms the character of the area and it was agreed at that time that the brick wall would remain and remain in perpetuity intact not to be knocked down.

Councillor Mrs French stated that there were many TPOs on this site, but sadly they have all been removed, which she finds disgraceful.  She notes that there is no report from the Conservation Officer and would like to know why, especially when part of a character of an area is going to be destroyed.  She knows it is not in a Conservation Area, but feels it is a very important part of March and should not be destroyed for the sake of one dwelling.

Councillor Mrs French referred to 5.3 of the officer’s report where the Highway Officer states, “if you or members decide to refuse planning permission then arguments could certainly be made on safety grounds and, therefore, refusal would not be an unreasonable conclusion.”  She made the point that there are hundreds of people using The Chase daily and since the pandemic when walking has become the normal and the construction of this site would be dangerous to pedestrians and it would be detrimental to their health if they could not use it.

Councillor Mrs French stated that The Chase is owned by Fenland District Council and maintained by them and discussions have taken place to acquire the top section, which could possibly affect maintenance as well. She feels to change the access head will not change the issues, as The Chase is not wide enough for cars to pass.

Councillor Mrs French urged members to refuse the application and not destroy the character of this area and remove the enjoyment of many hundreds of residents who use it daily.

Members asked questions of Councillor Mrs French as follows:

·         Councillor Booth asked Councillor Mrs French is she believed the application should be refused on highway safety grounds as per the Highway Officer’s report and also because of the loss of general amenity?  Councillor Mrs French responded that what she read out from 5.3 was comments from the Highway Officer as to justification to refuse the application and appeal several years ago.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Geoffrey Shaw, an objector to the proposal.  Mr Shaw informed members that he has lived in The Chase for the past 14 years so he knows quite a lot about the conditions here.  He feels it is important to stress that The Chase is a registered footpath or walkway, and has been so for several generations, it is not a roadway and was never intended to be one.

Mr Shaw stated that a very large number of local people use The Chase to access West End Park and March Town Centre, with a lot of them being disabled people from the home across the road from The Chase, wheelchair users, children, families with small children and dog walkers.  He expressed the view that Fenland has always protected The Chase as a public footpath and it is said that motor vehicles and pedestrians on a footpath do not mix, which is why Fenland has refused to allow development along The Chase before now and refused previous applications for this site and the adjacent site of Willow View.

Mr Shaw expressed the opinion that this Fenland policy has meant there has been no safety issue to pedestrians on The Chase in the past because there have been virtually no vehicles on it.  He expressed the view that this application would reverse that policy of preventing further development on The Chase and protecting pedestrians on it.

Mr Shaw feels there are a number of fundamental reasons with this application, one is that it puts the safety of pedestrians at substantial risk as you cannot protect pedestrians on a footpath by turning it into a roadway and putting more traffic on it and the description that refers to joint use is a meaningless label, in his view, because this application would lead to far more cars on The Chase than exist currently.  He expressed the opinion that there are large safety issues with this application that has been identified by the Planning Inspectors when they refused similar applications before but does not have time to go into all those safety issues now but if members wanted to ask him about them later he would be happy to answer.

Mr Shaw expressed the view that the second problem with this application is that it has a disastrous effect on the amenity value of The Chase to its users because it would degrade and diminish the experience that local people have travelling down it.  He feels they would be exposed to greater risk whilst at the same time being marginalised on their own footway and using The Chase would become an entirely different and less rewarding experience, with users not being able to walk casually down The Chase with their dog or family because they would constantly have to be vigilant on the alert and less relaxed.

Mr Shaw referred to the comments of Councillor Mrs French whereby it would damage the integrity of the landscape of The Chase by demolishing a heritage wall which is supposed to be protected.  He feels that the vast majority of the people who live in the area do not know about this application as they have not been consulted and, therefore, will only learn about it when it is too late to do anything about it.

Mr Shaw expressed the view that the third reason why this is a dangerous policy that should be rejected is that it sets a precedent for further development along The Chase as what is offered to one applicant cannot be readily refused to another.  He feels that members need to choose whether they favour a single applicant with one house to be built or support the broader interest of the majority of the community who use The Chase in an amenable and rewarding way at the moment. 

Mr Shaw expressed the opinion that this is a point of no return as this application would be crossing a line that Fenland have previously said you must not cross and asked members to refuse the application.

Members asked questions of Mr Shaw as follows:

·         Councillor Connor asked Mr Shaw what safety issues he has in mind?  Mr Shaw responded that these are quite clearly stated by the Planning Inspectorate when considering similar previous applications and they made it clear that there were compelling reasons why the development should not be allowed on safety grounds.  He stated that they said first of all that allowing even a modest increase in any traffic on The Chase would be an unacceptable risk to pedestrians and he feels that widening The Chase by 1.5 metres will not solve the problems of endangering pedestrians as there still would not be room for 2 cars to pass and where are those pedestrians going to go if they find a large vehicle coming along The Chase.  Mr Shaw expressed the view that there is also the problem of larger vehicles reversing up the entire length of The Chase as there is nowhere for them to turn once they access it.  He made the point that the Planning Inspector placed a lot of stress on the problems of the junction of The Chase with Gaul Road as they said there was a visibility problem and, in his view, this proposal does not satisfactorily remove those problems and he does not see how they can be removed.  Mr Shaw is not sure if Highways visited The Chase, but, in his view, there is no visibility on the eastern side of the junction as this is obstructed by a telegraph pole, a light standard and large commercial vehicle parked in the driveway of the adjacent property and on the other side, the splay that is proposed to be put there still would not give you enough visibility to be safe, so you are going to have pedestrians turning into The Chase without being able to see if anyone is coming.  He stated that the Inspector placed a lot of stress on what they called shuffling in Gaul Road, they said there is a big problem with vehicles attempting to turn into The Chase which is very narrow at the entrance, encountering vehicles trying to come out of it at the same time and this would create a dangerous problem of congestion on Gaul Road, this was 15 years ago and a lot has happened in Gaul Road since then to exacerbate and intensify that danger, it now much busier and has increased the problem.  He does not think the problems that the Inspector elaborated on and identified have been addressed by Cambridgeshire Highways in their assessment and he does not feel the proposed solutions about endangering people on The Chase have been answered.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent.  Mr Hall stated that before the application was submitted there were meetings and discussions on site with Fenland District Council’s Assets Department to discuss The Chase, which is owned by the Council, and possible improvements to it.  He made the point that The Chase already has streetlights, foul sewer and associated infrastructure and three dwellings at the moment all have access off The Chase.

Mr Hall stated that he has reviewed the previous planning and appeal refusals, which are 18 years old, and, in his opinion, the reason for refusal on each application was The Chase and the junction onto Gaul Road, with all of the previous applications not proposing any improvements whatsoever and this application is the first which proposes improvements to The Chase and to the junction at Gaul Road.  He made the point that the Highway Officer has visited the site on two occasions and he has confirmed that he believes the splay can be achieved in both directions on Gaul Road.

Mr Hall stated that they initially proposed a 1.5 metre wide dedicated footway for pedestrians, which would obviously be subject to design agreement with the Assets Department at Cambridgeshire County Council, but on 19 October Cambridgeshire County Council Highways advised that their preference was for a wider carriageway and to tie in with the existing Gaul Road footpath.  He expressed the view with the proposed widening of the carriageway it would still be 1.5 metres away from the majority of the wall, which abuts the site next door.

Mr Hall feels that what has not come out of the officer’s report is the assistance he has received during this application from Sarah Bell of Fenland District Council and Phil Caves, Cambridgeshire County Council’s Highways Officer, to bring this application forward.  He made the point that the Council in this report confirm that a bin lorry already enters The Chase to serve the existing properties, which would then serve this site.

Mr Hall made the point the site is in Flood Zone 1, not in a Conservation Area, on the edge of town and improvements are proposed to The Chase.  He stated that there have been numerous consultees as well as site visits on this application and no objections have been raised by the statutory consultees, with officers recommending approval.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·         Councillor Miscandlon asked whether any assessment has been undertaken of the current motor vehicle usage of The Chase?  Mr Hall responded that they had asked for accident data along The Chase and the junction with Gaul Road of which there was none, but there have been no specific surveys of vehicle movements.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he had visited the site and is concerned about safety.  He acknowledged that an extra 1.5 metres was going to be tarmacked, which will leave just the grass, but to get the entrance to The Chase off Gaul Road without widening is only 3 metres and to achieve the required vehicle access 18 metres of the wall will need to be taken down.  Mr Hall responded that only 5 metres of the wall will need to be taken down and explained using the officer’s photographs where the wall would be affected.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Murphy referred to the history where an application was refused and dismissed on appeal in 2002/2003 and asked what has changed for officers now to propose approval when the traffic is heavier?  David Rowen responded that the previous application proposed no improvements to The Chase and this application proposes works to improve The Chase in potentially widening the length of The Chase by 1.5 metres and improving the visibility of the junction with Gaul Road.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that he understands the highway implications at the Gaul Road end of The Chase, but the rest of The Chase is clearly not highway but a Fenland District Council owned footpath, which is in fact a heritage footpath.  He asked if the applicant has been asked to survey the pedestrians that use that footpath every day?  David Rowen stated that this request has not been made by the County Council’s Highway Officer and planning officers are guided by what the County Council says.  Councillor Cornwell made the point that it is Fenland property and the footpath is maintained by this Council, the essential grass strips on each side he assumes are maintained by the District Council and there is evidence of damage by large vehicles along this footpath.  He would have thought a survey would have been asked for as it is a heavily trafficked footpath as it links that part of March to the Town Centre and safety is an important element of this application.  David Rowen responded that whilst The Chase is owned by Fenland District Council, highway safety issues when dealing with planning applications are dealt with by the County Council as they have officers qualified to give advice and no survey work was requested as part of the application.  He made the point that the Estates Team have commented on the application and not raised any issues or concerns.  Nick Harding stated that it is not uncommon to come across on residential development a shared surface, which is a road shared with pedestrians and vehicles of 4.5 metres width and these roads could accommodate up to 50 dwellings.  He made the point that this application is for a lower number of dwellings with 4.5 metres width along the whole length.

·         Councillor Cornwell queried the 4.5 metres as he feels it is a varying width and there is a wide grass area.  Nick Harding confirmed that the application proposes a 4.5 metre width from Gaul Road up to the application site, where it is currently about 3 metres.

·         Councillor Booth referred to the comments made by Councillor Mrs French on why the Conservation Officer was not engaged, but he presumes this is because the site is not in a Conservation Area or a Listed Building?  Officers confirmed this to be correct.

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

·         Councillor Booth expressed concern over the safety of pedestrians and can remember numerous times when applications have had no highway concerns but councillors have raised valid concerns, but had their hands tied by Highways saying there are no issues.  He feels on this application officers are saying there are potential highway issues in 5.3 of the officer’s report, which is a reason for refusal, which raises a red flag.  Councillor Booth expressed the view that there is an issue with residential amenity and the impact on what is considered locally a heritage asset, although recognising it is not in a Conservation Area.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated The Chase is in effect an old established footway, owned and maintained in a certain way by Fenland District Council.  He feels the wall is protected by a previous decision of the Council and is confused how officers can recommend that element be changed to remove part of a wall which is protected under a previous decision.  Councillor Cornwell made the point that The Chase is a footpath and not a road, with some residents having a right of way over it and the quantity of pedestrians using the footpath is considerable.  He feels it is acknowledged that pedestrians and vehicles do not mix and the Council should not be encouraging more traffic to mix and on this basis he cannot support due to health and safety.

·         Councillor Connor advised that he visited the site today and he was not surprised to see how many people use this footpath, with a mixture of about 20 people in the 15-20 minutes he was there, which made him think this is a walkway.  He referred to his aunt living at 44 Gaul Road and can remember that it was a track in 60’s and people were walking down it then.  Councillor Connor feels it does have history and if that wall does have a condition or protection then it should not be touched and queried why officers are agreeing to this proposal now.

·         David Rowen stated that as part of the residential development to the west of the site there was a condition imposed on that planning permission for the wall to be retained and the prohibition of any vehicular or pedestrian access being made through the wall onto The Chase.  He made the point that this application proposes the removal of a 6 metre span of wall, which would be repositioned and rebuilt, which in officers view does not constitute a significant loss of the wall or its character or the contribution it makes to The Chase.

·         Councillor Cornwell queried why this condition should be changed for a heritage asset which is an essential part of the street scene.

Proposed by Councillor Booth, seconded by Councillor Cornwell and agreed that the application be REFUSED against officer’s recommendation.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of approval of planning permission as they feel there is a highway safety issue from pedestrians and vehicular conflict as highlighted in the report from the Highway Officer and the previous appeal decision, there would be a detrimental impact to users by the loss of a general amenity with the nature of the footpath being changed and a detrimental impact on a local heritage asset by the removal of the wall which is protected by a condition on a neighbouring application.

(Councillor Skoulding declared an interest in this application, by virtue of the application involving a family member, and retired from the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Mrs French took no part in the discussion and voting on this application as she had made a presentation as part of the public participation procedure and was, therefore, pre-determined)

(Councillor Benney declared an interest, by virtue of knowing and employing the agent and as Portfolio Holder for Assets he has had some minor involvement as the footpath is owned by Fenland District Council, and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillors Mrs French registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a member of March Town Council, but takes no part in planning matters)