Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Matthew Hall, the Agent.  Mr Hall stated that Force One has been operating in March for over seventeen years and at present it is located in Thoreby Avenue where the offices are located in a built-up area and the present restricted depot is based in Longhill Road which it has outgrown. He stated that currently 60 people are employed by the company, and this has grown from 44 employees over the last two years.

Mr Hall stated that the company works nationwide and is all based in March, providing safe working suction vehicles for most major infrastructure projects, such as Hs2, Sizewell C, Network Rail, nuclear industry airports and the chemical industry and the company also undertake local works for residential, commercial, and industrial projects. He explained that the company intend to employ a further 40 people by December 2023 and they have placed orders for £6,000,000 of plant investment which is due for delivery by December 2023, adding that Force One is an expanding company who wish to stay in the March area.

Mr Hall noted that within the officers report it makes reference to the fact that the site is within a rural location but referred to the ordnance survey plan and pointed out the proposed site and the offices of the Middle Level Commissioners in Flood Zone 3, along with Fen Coaches and a builder’s depot. He explained that there are further businesses as well as Foxes Marina down Whittlesey Road and Marina Drive and when you go further west towards Turves there is a large business called Ken Thomas located further beyond the site.

Mr Hall explained that he has provided a detailed arboricultural report due to the existing tree on the site and the access concerns, with the report confirming that mitigation measures will be taken to protect the tree and that the access can be set. He added that various discussions have taken place with Cambridgeshire County Council Highways Department regarding the access to the site and a highways consultant has provided a detailed scheme survey and detailed design, which the County Council have approved. He made the point that the company currently has sixteen suction vehicles, three light goods vehicles, twenty light commercial vehicles as well as company cars and the suction vehicles are currently parked when not on site, at Longhill Road, which they have now outgrown.

Mr Hall pointed out that the vehicles can often travel along Wisbech Road, Dartford Road and Station Road to get to the depot in Longhill Road, with the other route which is used being along the Twenty Foot Bank. He explained that the proposal will allow for vehicles to exit the bypass onto a short stretch of Whittlesey Road to enter the site, removing vehicles from coming into March, with the site having been developed with a one-way system and adequate parking.

Mr Hall explained that a detailed drainage design has been produced by an independent consultant which has been approved by the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Environment Agency.  He pointed out that the hedge at the front of the site which is set back from the brink of the ditch at the front, which will be maintained.

Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen and pointed out the training centre which will be used by the company and other organisations to provide training and he expressed the opinion that the proposal is set between and opposite existing businesses and is ideal for this type of land. He reiterated the point that the company is expanding and wishes to stay in March and currently its small depot and offices are located at separate sites and the proposal will allow for both to be located at one larger location. He added that, in the Local Plan, March is listed as one of the main market towns and all the consultees support the application.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Hall to confirm when he last contacted the Middle Level Commissioners? Mr Hall stated that when the application was submitted the existing access for Middle Level was used, which was opposed by the County Council and Middle Level and the access was then moved to the point in the officer’s report. He added that the Middle Level made their second objection in mid-December, and he has tried to engage with them from that point until the start of February to discuss their objections. Mr Hall explained that he did have an email response in the middle of February which stated that he must engage through a post application process with consent to go over the drainage ditch to culvert it, but to date there has been no further communication.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney stated that it would appear that Middle Level have not been forthcoming in responding to Mr Hall and he questioned whether if the application is determined today can the issues with Middle Level still be resolved? Alison Hoffman explained that the officers report summarises the comments of the Middle Level Commissioners and they have indicated that they require prior written consent under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act for the formation of the access culvert. They have also urged the agent to discuss this with the Commissioners/Board via the post-application consultation procedure and she added that it is a separate process to that of the planning consent. Nick Harding added that any planning decision that has been made or issued cannot override the requirements of other legislation and therefore a discharge into the Internal Drainage Board system requires a separate consent along with consent for crossing the drainage ditch and culverting.

·         Councillor Connor referred to 5.5 of the officer’s report where it makes reference to advice to the applicant stating that only clean, uncontaminated surface water should be discharged to any soakaway, watercourse, or surface water sewer, and he questioned whether an interceptor could be put in place? Alison Hoffman explained that as part of the recommendation of the Lead Local Flood Authority, they are anticipating further information and detail with regards to the drainage strategy for the site and she added that there is also an informative that they include with their consultation response.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that one of the concerns of the application is that it is in a rural location but, in her opinion, she does not know where a business of this type would be best suited. She added that she is the Chairman of the March Area Transport Strategy, (MATS) who have been looking at ways to reduce traffic and pollution in the March Town centre and if the application was approved, it would take the traffic away from the town. Councillor Mrs French stated that she can understand why the business wishes to relocate to a better premises, and by removing the sites in Thoreby Avenue and Longhill Road, it makes common sense. She added that she was unaware of the number of staff already employed and the proposed increase of an additional 40 personnel over the next few years is a large number. Councillor Mrs French explained there are various references in the officer’s report with regards to MATS and an application that was refused ten years ago, with Peashill roundabout being the subject of discussions with the MATS over the last four years and at a recent County Council meeting it was agreed that the County Council could apply to the Combined Authority for £3.7 million pounds to progress with the work that is being undertaken at Peashill roundabout. She explained that there is going to be new roundabout at that location, and she has no concerns about that roundabout not being able to cope with volumes of traffic, with there also going to be the addition of traffic lights at the Hostmoor Avenue junction. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that it is an ideal site for the proposed application and there are various commercial businesses already in that location and she would like to see it approved.

·         Councillor Murphy expressed the view that there is no room for the company to expand in the town centre and, in his opinion, it is an ideal site for the business to relocate to and it needs to be approved.

·         Councillor Miscandlon expressed the opinion that it is an ideal site for the size and type of business as it takes it away from the town centre location. He stated that it is not in the open countryside, and it will have businesses either side of it and although it is rural, a lot of businesses of this type do not like to be in a town centre location.

·         Councillor Skoulding expressed the view that the design is a fantastic and an ideal location for the business to be. He added that he would like to see the application approved, as it will also provide more employment in the area.

·         Councillor Benney referred to the reasons for refusal and referred to LP3 of the Local Plan, with the proposed location already having businesses on all four sides of it and, in his opinion, it is an ideal location for this business. He added that the Economic Growth Team at the Council work throughout the district to try and bring businesses forward, there is a shortage of land and available spaces and, in his opinion, this proposal will make very good use of the land and a business of this nature needs a large site especially when considering the very large excavation vehicles that it uses. Councillor Benney expressed the view that it makes perfect sense to consolidate the sites and move to this site as it is more profitable and sustainable for the owner. He added that the Economic Growth Manager at the Council has spoken to the owner of Force One and because of the proposed training centre, which will be onsite, discussions are taking place to try and obtain funding from the Combined Authority to try and help fund it. Councillor Benney stated that steps should be taken to support the business which has grown in the last few years. He referred to the third reason for refusal as it states the site is in Flood Zone 3, which the next agenda item is also in, and there needs to be consistency as other applications have been approved when they are also in Flood Zone 3. He added that mitigation measure will be put in place to make the site safe and if it is not approved, the Council will be holding a good business back and stop it from expanding and employing local people. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that he can see no reason to refuse the application.

·         Councillor Purser agreed with the comments made by other members, and added that he notes the officers report states that there are issues with regards to lack of footpath and streetlights, but, in his view, a development such as this does not need a footpath or streetlights. He feels that the application should be supported.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he can understand why officers have recommended the application for refusal with regards to sustainability in terms of street lighting and footpaths. He expressed the view that the Middle Level Commissioners in principle have no objection against the proposal, but it is the finer detail that they have to resolve and therefore there is the need for them to engage .Councillor Sutton stated that in terms of sustainability and position from the proposed site entrance to the fountain in March is 1.4 miles and from the fountain to Longhill Road is 1.9 miles and although there is a pavement from the fountain to Longhill Road if another pavement was included he does not think it would be utilised. Councillor Sutton stated that as a committee there needs to be the view that the Council is open for business, and he will support the application.

·         Councillor Marks stated that, in his opinion, keeping the lorries out of the town centre makes a great deal of sense. He added that the provision of the training centre shows that the business is prepared to invest, and that all businesses are struggling at the present time to try and get labour, especially qualified labour which can only benefit the local area.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that initially he did not know who Force One were and he did not know the extent of their work. He expressed the view that the company should be supported and be proud that they are within the district and that they want to remain within the district.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she also did not know about Force One and she expressed the view that the country has come through the worst pandemic in living history and she is delighted to see a business thriving within the area.

·         Nick Harding stated that if members are minded to support the application against the officer’s recommendation then they must state the reasons why this proposal is being put forward and also address the reasons for refusal identified in the officer’s report, which are the rural location, the unsustainable location in terms of transport connections, the flood risk sequential test and the tree mitigation.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application should be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officer to apply robust conditions in consultation with Councillor Sutton

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the proposal is not located in a rural area as urbanisation is already in place, there are overarching reasons to move the business to the location which outweigh the concerns over sustainability, and  conditions can be placed on the application to secure a proper flood risk assessment being carried and protection of the horse chestnut tree and the public right of way (number 66).

(Councillors Connor, Purser, Skoulding and Councillor Mrs French registered, in accordance with 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)

(Councillor Cornwell declared that he is employed by a company who are adjacent to the application site and therefore took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Marks stated that the applicant for this item is known to him in a professional capacity but it would not make any difference to his decision making and voting on the application)

(Councillor Mrs French stated that she is a member of March West and White Fen Internal Drainage Board, but this would have no bearing on her determination of the application) 

(Councillors Benney and Murphy stated that the agent for this item is known to them in a professional capacity but it would not make any difference to their decision making and voting on the application)

(Councillor Purser stated that he is a member of March East Internal Drainage Board but this would have no bearing on his determination of the application) 

(Councillor Sutton declared that he sits on the board of the Middle Level Commissioners, and he is a Commissioner, but this wouldhave nobearing on his determination of theapplication)

(Councillor Miscandlon stated that he is a member of Middle Level Commissioners, but this would have no bearing on his determination of the application)