Agenda item

To determine the application.

Theresa Nicholl presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Tim Slater on behalf of the agent. Mr Slater stated that the officer recommends refusal on two grounds, which he will address, and it is pertinent to note that there is significant local support for the scheme, with 16 letters of support and non in objection, and the Town Council is supportive. He feels the site is a sustainable and accessible location on the edge of March, with it having good access by road, cycle and footpath links to the Town Centre.

Mr Slater expressed the opinion that the new Gaul Road cycle way passes immediately to the south of the site giving enhanced and sustainable access to the town and is closer and more accessible to the Town Centre than much of the existing town itself. He expressed the view that the adopted Local Plan enables new development on the edge of the town under the provision of LP3 and LP4, with LP4 noting that development of up to 249 dwellings can be acceptable on the edge of market towns on unallocated land.

Mr Slater stated that the application site sits close to the established developments north of Gaul Road and adjacent to the allocation and Broad Concept Plan area to the south of Gaul Road. He made the point that it is common ground with the officer that there was at least one dwelling and associated outbuildings on the site until comparatively recently, with the 1999 Google earth view of the site showing this and whilst the site has been cleared in the interim it remains previously developed land, it is not agricultural land nor does it form part of a wider land ownership of the land between Gaul Road and the river.

Mr Slater contended that the historic presence of a dwelling on site is material as it provides an indication of the built form of development along Gaul Road and shows that along Gaul Road, as is common with many Fenland roads, the characteristic built form is sporadic homes, with the planning weight to be given to this fact a matter for the committee. He stated that the application was accompanied by a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment as stipulated by the Council’s validation requirements and the Environment Agency raises no objection to the scheme and there is no consultation response from Middle Level on file.

Mr Slater made the point that whilst the site lies in land shown as Flood Zone 3 on the Environment Agency maps, members will be aware that this mapping is based on the assumption that the land is undefended in that flood defences are not taken into consideration. He expressed the opinion that the Fens are the oldest, best understood, best defended and best managed river system in the country and consequently the actual risk from flooding is not reflected in the Environment Agency’s mapping, with the site in common with most in Fenland being subject to layered engineering and management defences.

Mr Slater expressed the view that the Flood Risk Assessment submitted sets out clearly the risks and mitigation and confirms that the site is within a defended area benefitting from several engineering defences that offer layered protection to the site, such that the site can be made safe from the threat of flooding for its life span that is a 1 to100 year event taking into account climate change. He feels the Flood Risk Assessment make its clear that the watercourses that put the site in Flood Zone 3 are protected by Whittlesey Washes barrier bank and Mid Level barrier bank and these defences provide protection in excess of a 1 to100 year eventuality, which shows the site is not at a significant actual risk from flooding.

Mr Slater expressed the opinion that there is significant local support for the proposal as set out in the officer’s report and these neighbour comments set out a number of reasons why the proposal is beneficial and could be approved. He concluded that the scheme is a small residential proposal seeking a beneficial use for a residual residential plot on the edge of March Town and it is not considered that it will be harmful to the local visual amenity and matters of flood risk are accounted for.

Members asked questions of Mr Slater as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked that, if this application is approved, how the link up would be for the sewerage, would it be a cesspit or to the mains? Mr Slater responded that this has not been decided at this time.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if he is aware that the land to the north and west of this site is planned to be handed over to the Council for the extension of West End Park? Mr Slater responded that he is aware that this is a proposal in the emerging Local Plan. Councillor Mrs French pointed out that it is not the emerging Local Plan it is going to happen as the condition was placed on Cannon Kirk’s development in 2003/2004.

·       Councillor Sutton requested clarity on Mr Slater saying that there used to be a dwelling on the site. Mr Slater responded in the affirmative, it was knocked down some time ago. Councillor Sutton stated that he does not remember one but is not saying there was not but asked if he agreed that the accommodation had been abandoned? Mr Slater reiterated that the property was demolished some time ago.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she moved to March in 1984 and the property was definitely in existence until at least the late 80’s and she believes it was an old cottage.

Member asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs Davis referred to Mr Slater negating the need for a sequential test by virtue of the systems Fenland has in place and despite what he says asked officers to confirm that the sequential test is still required, and it is not a matter of opinion? David Rowen responded that the Cambridgeshire Flood and Water Supplementary Planning Document states “the presence of existing defences should not be taken into consideration when undertaking the sequential test. The maintenance of the defences may change over time and climate change will have an impact on the level of protection that they offer, particularly in low-lying areas noted for their organic sub strata. These are generally peaty areas which are prone to desiccation and shrinkage” so it is adopted planning policy that the existence of flood defences should not be taken into consideration.

·       Councillor Sutton read from the Environment Agency comments on one of these applications that because of the defences Fenland has it lowered the flood risk into the one below it and the Environment Agency seem to be having a more relaxed opinion than they have previously and asked officers if they agreed? Theresa Nicholl responded that the response on this application was that the Environment Agency said they had no objections, but they are not the body that are tasked with applying the sequential test so there was no objections subject to the Council being assured that the sequential test is passed, and this is the Council’s responsibility.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred again to a training session that was held for members and the Environment Agency stated that it is the internal drainage boards, such as Middle Level, who matter on these issues, and they are not interested. She made the point that she has known this site for many years, and she has never known that site to flood even when the floods of 2020 occurred.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that there are 16 letters of support, with half of them not being from residents in the area, and asked why are these being taken into consideration when it was agreed years ago that letters from only that particular ward or neighbouring ward would be taken into consideration? David Rowen responded that the Scheme of Delegation does distinguish between representations from the ward or adjacent ward in terms of triggering an application coming to committee, however, if a representation is received on a planning application it has to be considered and that is why they are listed within the report. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that the Council, and she thought it was in a policy document, would not take these letters into consideration, which applies to members calling in an application that they can only do this for their own ward or neighbouring ward so asked why is it different for local residents, especially as letters of support have been received from Benwick and Ramsey Heights. Nick Harding responded that the one of the triggers for an application coming before committee does include the number of local representations and the Council received sufficient number of local representations contrary to the recommendation and as well as hitting that trigger of the number of local representations there were others that fall geographically outside the area but as David alluded to the Council has to report and consider all representations no matter where they are from in the determination of an application.

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

·       Councillor Skoulding stated that this site lies in his and Councillor Mrs French’s ward and he has never known this site to flood, further north-west in the corner yes, so he cannot understand why this site is in Flood Zone 3 and cannot see any problem here.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that her concern is that applications are being submitted without doing the sequential test and whatever people think that is the current way in which an application is supposed to be looked at and approaching it by saying it has never been known to flood is not acceptable.

·       Nick Harding stated that Councillor Mrs Davis has made a very good point as there is a process that has to be followed even if it is not necessarily agreed with, which is enshrined in national policy as well as local policy that this Council has adopted. He referred to the issue of the site being previously developed and the Case Officer in the report makes it quite clear that this site is not a brownfield site because the building has long since gone and the site has been assimilated into the countryside and this definition is clearly set out within the NPPF.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Davis, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillors Connor, 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)