Agenda item

To determine the application.

Theresa Nicholl presented the report to members and drew attention to the update that had been circulated.

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 Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that members will have noted in the officer’s report that there are no technical objections to this application and March Town Council has supported all the previous applications on the site. He made the point that the site is located in Flood Zone 1 and is in an area of approximately 24 residential dwellings located off Flaggrass Hill Road which links with Creek Road.

Mr Hall stated that the majority of this site is covered with concrete hardstanding and some former buildings and, in his view, by removing this the drainage situation would improve with less impermeable areas as on previous applications concerns had been raised by residents regarding localised flooding. He feels the indicative layout allows for a far greater permeable area for this entire site.

Mr Hall stated that all the properties in this area have septic tanks or treatment plants and soakaways for rainwater, which is what this proposal would have as well. He expressed the view that a drainage condition can be applied to any approval ensuring an engineered design is agreed for the site.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that previously the applicant obtained an ecology report for this site which was submitted with the previous application but the whole site could not be accessed and what has not been indicated in the officer’s report is that the applicant obtained a further ecology report that was submitted with the application, which following some site clearance allowed access to the remainder of the site and the recommendations within that report can be implemented as part of a condition. He stated the proposal for this site has been revised as concerns were raised by members and adjacent properties regarding large two-storey dwellings, with this proposal now being single-storey dwellings only.

Mr Hall stated that officers on the previous application also raised concern regarding the visual conflict with the bungalow to the front of the site and it is now shown to match in with single-storey dwellings. He made the point that the applicant has gone away and listened to what members have said and reduced the dwellings all to be single-storey and it was agreed with the officer during the application that the description would be amended to single-storey only.

Mr Hall made the point that a further ecology report has been undertaken on the site, so it has now had two and there are no technical objections to this application.

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

·       Councillor Benney remembers when the previous application was before committee and a lot of the members concerns were the two-storey aspect and he is pleased to see this application come back with single-storey dwellings, which has alleviated his concerns although he did support the application previously. He feels the applicant has listened to what the committee said and if committee passes comments and a revised application addresses those comments, he feels members should be supporting the application. Councillor Benney referred to March Town Council not commenting on this occasion, but it has supported the application on the previous times. He acknowledged that the proposal does not propose a footpath but asked how many people who live in this area do not have a car and you would not buy a property in this location without a vehicle so, in his view, the connectivity is already there making the point that there is no one in his street that does not have a car, with most properties having more than one vehicle. Councillor Benney feels that these properties would make good homes and he feels the applicant has listened and addressed as best he can the concerns of the committee and he feels it would be wrong of the committee to now refuse it after he has undertaken the suggested work. He will be supporting the application, it is Flood Zone 1, and the ecology has been addressed.

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed her surprise to see there had been no comments from March Town Council and she has checked with the Town Clerk on the reason and her understanding is that because the Town Council has its meetings on the first Monday and the planning meeting on the third Monday of the month the deadline date was somehow missed but she was informed on previous recommendations it was to approve including the two-storey ones. She stated that she knows the site well, it is part of her County Council Division, there are other dwellings past this site that have been built and been there for many years and she feels, as Councillor Benney said, the agent was asked to go away and look at the proposal and he has done this so she will be supporting this application.

·       Councillor Connor expressed the view that he will be supporting the application as those that live in Flaggrass Hill will have a car they are not going to walk to Tesco or up town.

·       Councillor Topgood made the point that Fenland is a rural community, there are rural areas that do not have buses or have paths so questioned whether no building takes place in rural areas. He feels you cannot keep adding to the towns you need to build in other places as well and people who buy these properties will have cars so he will be going against officer’s recommendation.

·       Councillor Connor made the point that there is nowhere in the centre of the town that you can actually build so you have to build out.

·       Nick Harding stated that, as the Case Officer mentioned in her presentation, committee determined the last application and one of the reasons that it was refused was on the matter of principle so on any proposal to grant the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation an explanation needs to be given as to why it is now being viewed differently.

·       Theresa Nicholl stated that she has not had any ecology information submitted as part of this application and as far as she can see it was not on the previous application either. The Chairman allowed Mr Hall to address this issue. Mr Hall stated that it was a report by Howard Hillier, and they were asked for this report at validation and it was on the public planning portal when he looked on Friday. He stated that the previous application, which he was not the agent for, has an ecology report also on the planning portal. Councillor Mrs French stated that members need to believe what their officers are saying but there must have been a communication error somewhere so asked for this to be checked out.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel the previous application was refused as it was deemed unsuitable only by that committee not by this committee, the concerns about the height of the building have been addressed by reducing the dwellings to single-storey and that LP16 (d) is subjective, with this proposal not deemed to be adversely impacting on the settlement pattern.

(Councillor Connor made the point that when the previous application for this site had been considered he took no part in the discussion and voting thereon, but as this is a new application he can participate, which is supported on legal advice)

(Councillors Mrs French and Purser 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)