Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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 Mr  Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall explained that the site was largely completed in 2021 and the properties were occupied, however, since that time one of the dwellings has been resold. He added that is a private block paved driveway and he made reference to the Public Access system which details comments to make the point that there is not enough on-site parking.

Mr Hall made the point that the development was approved in 2018 and still meets the parking standards requested by the adopted Local Plan and, in his opinion, that by not setting the turning head it will not impact the on-site parking. He added that the applicant can provide further replacement of the trees as detailed in the officer’s report which will accord with the neighbour’s comments.

Mr Hall stated that one of the two objections received has raised concern regarding a brick boundary wall being demolished, however, there are no walls to be demolished as part of the proposal. He made reference to the officer’s report and stated that as part of the officer’s report it details an approved site plan of the original development, however, the site plan that was approved under the discharge of conditions application shows the bin lorry reversing into the site and this was commented on by the Highway Authority and Environmental Services and their comments are available on the Public Access system.

Mr Hall made the point that, prior to any works commencing on the site, the drawing clearly shows as part of the discharge of conditions application the lorry reversing into the site and as part of the application the applicant provided an indemnity with regards to damage to the private block paved driveway and the applicant still owns the road. He stated that he has an email from the Environment Services Manager, Adam Pratt, which also states that his drawing originally showed the swept path for the bin lorry was from Gaul Road into the private driveway of the site and the email also states that the bin lorry does not turn in the site and collections would not be affected by removing the turning head.

Mr Hall explained that the swept path provided as part of the application shows that a 6.6 metre long vehicle could enter the site and turn without the turning head and he explained that a typical Amazon delivery van is less than this at 6.3 metres long and a typical Sainsburys Sprinter delivery vehicle is 6 metres long. He stated that Environment Services have confirmed that they do not enter the site since the development was completed nearly two years ago and they will not use the turning head.

Mr Hall made the pointe that the site is compliant with the parking standards in the Local Plan and to the best of the applicant’s knowledge there have been no accidents within the site and there are no mention of any accidents by the Highway Authority to date at the junction of Gaul Road.

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the reason the proposal is before the committee is due to the comments from the Town Council which are contrary to the officer’s recommendation, however, it appears that the comments on the website are redacted, and the comments cannot be seen. Councillor Mrs French made the point that March Town Council very rarely comment on planning applications. David Rowen stated that he is unaware why that should be the case but referred to the officer’s report at 5.1 where it states that March Town Council recommends approval of the application. Nick Harding stated that it is most likely that the Town Council did not state the reasoning why and the report has possibly been redacted due to the fact that the other parts of the email do not relate to the application.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that the County Council appear to be clear in their view that the application should be refused as there is an insufficient turning head and David Rowen clarified that the County Council responses are detailed at 5.2 of the officer’s report where they point out that the size of the vehicle used for the swept path is not suitable and does not demonstrate that large vehicles can access the development and it will require servicing with various sizes of vehicles and the lack of a turning head is not acceptable. He added that the County Council do acknowledge that as part of the refuse collection strategy, it was agreed that the refuse collection vehicle would back from Gaul Road into the site but notwithstanding that they do maintain the view that there is a need for the turning head to be provided as part of the scheme. Councillor Cornwell stated that consideration needs to be given to any vehicle and not just a small refuse collection vehicle.

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that the applicant has not complied with the condition to supply the turning head and she asked officers to confirm that they are looking to enforce that aspect as detailed within the report. David Rowen stated that if members support the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application then the associated next step would be for the appropriate action to be taken to secure the delivery of the turning head.

·       Councillor Murphy stated that when members visited the site it was clearly visible that you could not turn as it was grown over and the surface was not solid enough for a vehicle to use. He added that he also observed that there was actually a blue water pipe sticking out of the ground and he questioned whether the intention is actually for a turning head or is the intention to site another dwelling. David Rowen stated that members do need to consider the application before them which is for the securing and delivery of the turning head.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she knows the site exceptionally well and planning permission was first applied for in 2007 and it has a very long planning history. She made the point that as the application was approved in 2018, she would have expected that the works on the site to have all been completed by now. Councillor Mrs French stated that prior to any commencement of works there used to be 14 Tree Preservation Orders on the site which should have been retained and the trees have all gone and the two cherry trees, which did not have tree preservation orders attached to them are both dead and should they be removed they should be replaced with mature trees. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that the officer’s recommendation is correct.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that on the site visit it is clear that there is no turning head at the bottom unless you use two private driveways as there is no proper turning bay at the bottom and that is further indicated by the fact that the grass on one side has been very badly churned up where vehicles have possibly tried their best to turn around at the bottom. He added that it means that the original plan that was approved has not been complied with and, in his opinion, the turning head is required in the middle of the road.

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

(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)

(Councillors Connor, Mrs French, Skoulding 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)

(Councillor Skoulding declared that he owns part of the Chase adjacent to this development, but it would not make any difference to his decision making and voting on the application)