Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update report 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 Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the application is for up to nine dwellings and has been submitted in an outline form with all matters reserved, with the application being an excellent opportunity, in her view, to provide high quality executive style housing which has the support of March Town Council and also from many local residents. She stated that the application has been recommended for refusal on four reasons which include the impact on the character of the area, flood risk, highway safety and ecology issues.

Mrs Jackson stated that the committee report considers that the proposal would cause harm to the character and rural nature of that particular part of Upwell Road, and whilst the comments of the officer are noted, in her opinion, that view is subjective. She stated that the site will provide large executive dwellings which will positively promote this particular part of March and, in her opinion, it would be of a significant benefit rather than cause harm.

Mrs Jackson stated that the proposal sits comfortably in the natural boundaries of the site, whilst still providing an access for modern farming equipment to access the rear land and provide an easement for the drain to the east. She expressed the view that the generous plot sizes will still enable the views of the open countryside which will still be visible from the Upwell Road highway and the semi-rural character of this part of March will not be lost as a result of the development.

Mrs Jackson stated that she is aware that part of the site falls within Flood Zone 1 and also that plots 6 to 9 are within Flood Zone 3 but the submitted Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that all of the dwellings will be technically safe from flooding and the Environment Agency has raised no objections. She explained that the finished floor levels will be consistent across the site and technically no dwelling will be at greater risk than another despite the change in flood zones and, in her opinion, there is no increased risk to people or property in terms of flood risk.

Mrs Jackson referred to the third reason of refusal which relates to highway safety and expressed the view that she finds the reason somewhat harsh given that the details of access are not committed for consideration at this current stage. She stated that within the indicative drawings the individual access points have been shown as this is a requirement for planning validation and she pointed out that there are concerns with regards to the access points which are in the 40mph zone due to the insufficient visibility at those points but, in her opinion, there are two simple solutions to those concerns, with one solution to overcome the highway concerns being to extend the 30mph limit to the extent of the development site so that a lesser visibility requirement is necessary, and the other solution would be to bring a single point of access within the existing 30mph zone to serve the whole of the development and she feels that either of these options could be secured by means of a planning condition and submitted as part of the reserved matters submission.

Mrs Jackson pointed out that with regards to the ecology concerns, the detail of those can be required if deemed necessary. She added that a neighbouring resident who supports the application asked Mrs Jackson to read out a few words on their behalf.’ I would like to support the application as I feel that it would be beneficial to the road scene coming into town. This application will return the view coming into town to ribbon style development instead of the blocked view that would be created by application F/YR19/0931 when that is built. This was mentioned at the time of the application in 2019 by officers and if approved the current application will correct the street scene by masking the back land development in a beneficial way which is already approved at 137 Upwell Road. The application also appears to be a high quality of good-sized properties, setting a good impression of the town on entry.’

Mrs Jackson stated that there are considerable benefits which outweigh the harm as stated in the officer’s reason for refusal, with the benefits including the opportunity for high quality housing in a primary market town and setting a positive scene on the approach into March. She pointed out that there is demand for such development as the applicant has already been approached by people wishing to purchase the plots and the application has the support of March Town Council and local residents and there are no objections from any technical consultees which cannot be easily overcome.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French pointed out that the Environment Agency have no objections to the proposal as issues concerning drainage falls under the remit of the Internal Drainage Boards.

·       Councillor Miscandlon pointed out that historically there was another development slightly further along from the application being determined and at that time there were concerns raised with regards to visibility and access onto the highway and the solution was to cut down the trees on Upwell Road. He made the point that it is a lovely avenue of trees, and he would hate to see that happen again. Councillor Miscandlon asked officers for their thoughts with regards to the removal of any further trees along that section of Upwell Road? Nick Harding stated that the trees in that location fall under the remit of the County Council as they are on the highway and, therefore, it would be their decision as to whether they are removed. David Rowen stated that the officer’s report makes reference to the cumulative impact that the verges and trees have on creating the verdant character as you approach March and whilst the trees are the responsibility of the Highway Authority, if they were to be removed, the officer’s view is that it would be detrimental to the character of the area.

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

·       Councillor Cornwell made the point that in the report the map highlights the site in red, but if you go north and south there is nothing and the application site is totally isolated and, in his opinion, it does not make any environmental sense. He stated that if you are considering an area plan it would totally ruin any vision for anything that was being considered for that particular area. Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that he does not think that the application is sustainable and he does not support it at all.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with the point made by Councillor Cornwell and stated that the proposal will not enhance Upwell Road at all. She pointed out that in December 2020, Upwell Road suffered from a severe flooding event, and it has only recently had some of the drains piped near Eastwood Cemetery. Councillor Mrs French stated that it is a main drain which runs along there, and she explained that she has been working with the County Council to map out all of the ditches and dykes in the area and the March area has been fully completed. She added that every step will be taken to mitigate any kind of flooding and made that point that it is a main drain and there are endangered species in the drain. Councillor Mrs French stated that as a riparian dyke it will always belong to the County Council, and she questioned who would be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the other side if the proposal was built out. She stated that as part of the March Area Transport Study that she is involved in some work has been undertaken concerning Upwell Road where speed cushions are being introduced and the speed limit is being lowered in some areas from 60mph to 40mph and from 40mph to 30mph. Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that there is no way she could support the application.

·       Councillor Connor made the point that riparian drains do cause issues as nobody wishes to take ownership of them.

·       Councillor Skoulding expressed the opinion that he disagrees with some of the points made as there is still farmland behind and the farmer will keep the drains clear in order to maintain his crops. He added that he is familiar with that road, and he made the point that the road does flood near the cemetery but not near the site. Councillor Skoulding stated that when you come past the railway line, in his opinion, that is when you are entering the town of March and he does not see any problem with the application. He added that there are two roads, Coleseed Road and also another road which goes round to Barkers Lane which all have drains and are kept clear. Councillor Skoulding added that if the last three dwellings are going to built up higher, they will be an asset to the town and look nice upon entry into March.

·       Nick Harding pointed out to Councillor Connor and also to Councillor Skoulding a dyke shown on Google Street view from 2010 which is not maintained.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that if the dyke is at the edge of the highway it belongs to the County Council and there is no knowledge of it being piped. David Rowen stated that when he visited the site recently there was no evidence of the drain having been piped as it looks as it did in the 2010 images. Councillor Mrs French stated that she will raise this issue with the County Council to ensure the information held is up to date.

·       Councillor Skoulding made the point that he is able to identify the manhole point and the part of Upwell Road which has been piped.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis referred to 1.5 of the officer’s report where it states that the proposed dwellings plots 6, 7 and 9 are in Flood Zone 3 and it also states that it has failed the sequential test. She added that it does not matter that only half of them are in Flood Zone 3 as it has failed the sequential test and there are places around where those houses could be built quite safely.

Proposed by Councillor Cornwell, seconded by Councillor Miscandlon and agreed that the application should be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillors Connor, Mrs French 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)

(Councillor Skoulding declared that he owns property in Upwell Road, but it would not make any difference to his decision making and voting on the application)