Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report that had been circulated.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillors John Clark and Skoulding, District Councillor objectors to the proposal.  Councillor Clark stated that he has no pecuniary interest in this application although he does own properties on the junction of St Peters Road and High Street and has lived in March all his life bringing up a family and running businesses in the town. He expressed the view that March has always being a bustling market town and he believes the people of March want it to stay that way, with all the towns in Fenland having a similar short stay parking facility in their town centres as do many other towns in the area. 

 

Councillor Clark made the point that Fenland District Council (FDC) secured the funding from the Government and they are responsible for its control and spending, with the Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) being a partner to deliver the improvements and FDC and CCC set up a Member Steering Group consisting of Councillors French, Purser, Gowing, Count and Skoulding.  He stated that Daniel Timms was engaged to prepare the proposed development who works as a consultant for Metro Dynamics of Manchester and queried whether someone closer who would have been more understanding of the needs of March could have been employed.

 

Councillor Clark referred to the CCC minutes which show the study examined a wide range of options developed from officer led workshops which were subsequently reviewed by the Member Steering Group so he feels that FDC would have had the power to influence and shape the town centre development and the comments by Councillor French that CCC do not have to take notice of FDC opinions on highways issues he believes is untrue in relation to this major project. He referred to the March Town Council meeting on 5 September 2022, where minute 86 states that “it is also believed that the total Broad Street project was open to legal challenge and possible judicial review because of the lack of meaningful consultation in the early stages of the scheme”, with March Town Council members unanimously agreeing that they would publicly oppose the project in its entirety with a view to getting the scheme aborted and a few weeks later an extraordinary meeting was held on 17 October, with minute 103 referring to a special motion proposed by Councillor Connor to be prepared and signed by councillors to amend the resolution of the Council meeting of 5 September to oppose the project, which was signed by 11 councillors, all March Town Council members except one, but does include Councillors French, Connor, Purser and Skoulding who sit on FDC Planning, to amend minute 86 point c, the fountain to be positioned as highlighted on the FDC artist’s impression adjacent to Malletts and councillors unanimously agreed to move the motion which made the decision to oppose the development taken on 5 September obsolete. 

 

Councillor Clark expressed the view that the public consultation at the Library has been reported by various residents as disappointing, with one March resident being told by an officer that it is this plan or nothing. He referred to the March Market Place consultation, where he stood at the market stall for 35 minutes and whatever suggestions were made were talked down and he came away with the impression that it is this plan or nothing and in the 35 minutes he stood at the stall no ones comments were recorded so it leads him to believe that the consultation was meaningless. 

 

Councillor Clark expressed the opinion that this development wants to sterilise and rip the heart out of March Town Centre, with March residents not being against the refurbishment of Broad Street but very concerned that their voices and ideas have just not been heard in preparing this proposed scheme. He asked that the application be refused on the grounds of lack of meaningful consultation.

 

Councillor Skoulding made the point that the Fountain was paid for by the people of March 112 years ago and at present the road wraps around the majority of it and the rest of it is protected by railings so it does not get damaged. He feels that moving the Fountain to the footpath will bring problems as it will get damaged, vandalised and people will use it as a climbing frame.

 

Councillor Skoulding stated that as a March man born and bred, he does not want to see the Fountain moved at all but if residents cannot have a say what happens in their own town he is asking for it to be moved somewhere safe. He reiterated that it was paid for by the people of March and to let people have their say.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillors Count and Mrs French, District Councillors in support of the proposal. Councillor Count stated that he fully understands the comments made by the people of March who object to what is proposed for the town centre, they have the best interests of March and its future in their heart when they put forward their objections and he knows this proposal is about the Fountain but when he has listened to and read the objections much is connected to the wider scheme on which he has other views. He stated that objectors were not alone in objecting to the proposal and he is also not alone in supporting the proposal, with many people approaching him quietly expressing support as well as many expressing their frustration or alternative ideas, all of which he has taken into account and listened to.

 

Councillor Count expressed the view that March Town Centre is typical of many market towns and high streets up and down the country, it is slowly dying which is not the fault of the Council but is due to people changing the way they shop and where they shop and an additional burden is that the town centre is congested. He stated that in coming up with this proposal, he has been to many meetings where the evidence of traffic and potential solutions to deal with it were examined, all of the alternative suggestions he has heard, such as new bypasses, new bridges, outside of town, inside of town, using Grays Lane, have been looked at and examined in detail with officers, experienced experts and other March Councillors who have tested, prodded and poked all of the evidence and came up with a package of schemes for March which, in his view, work.

 

Councillor Count stated that one of the biggest concerns of people is that they do not believe that two lanes will work, but the bridge only has two lanes and that is not the cause of congestion, it is the traffic lights so, in his opinion, solve the traffic lights and the two lanes will work. He feels that a roundabout where the Fountain currently sits solves that problem of congestion, this is because a roundabout removes all of the dead time when the lights are on red and the modelling did include pedestrians crossing the road.

 

Councillor Count expressed the view that this proposal is part of a package as the new northern link road, new Peas Hill roundabout and new junction at Hostmoor will follow on with funding from the Combined Authority moving congestion from the wider area and alleviating some additional traffic pressure from town, with this new layout working not just for now but for planned growth as well. He feels that accepting the roundabout is the best solution and the question had to be asked where the Fountain should go, stay where it is as part of a new roundabout, go in front of Iceland, on the Market Place or in the park or a more central point in the High Street, all of these were discussed and for various good reasons were decided as not being as good as the location currently proposed near to Malletts for reasons ranging from lack of visibility diminishing the importance of the Fountain, utilities and loss of car parking.

 

Councillor Count believes the new location is still highly visible in the town centre and with the War Memorial at the other end it continues to define the two ends of Broad Street enhancing the look of the town. He feels that this piece of work concentrates on the road network, however, does nothing for the town except solve congestion, it is fortunate that with such a major change coming to March it gave FDC the opportunity to bid for funding which was successful and is the Broad Street package of measures, money to improve the look of the pedestrianised area and Market Place, with, in his view, evidence clearly showing that an attractive public realm space such as the one proposed in March increases footfall as well as dwell time which are vital for shops, restaurants, cafes, etc.

 

Councillor Count stated that he cannot promise that all of a sudden March will be full of shops but he honestly believes that instead of killing the town centre as some believe this is the best chance and a real opportunity so save and enhance the town he loves. He feels the committee is best placed to deal with the legal consideration on whether or not to move the Fountain but in all of this work there is the need to move the Fountain and he feels this location is the best place for it as did the working group he sat on.

 

Councillor Count stated like everyone else at the committee today either for or against the proposal the best is wanted for the town of March and he hopes that he has done enough today for the Planning Committee and those with concerns that this future for the centre of march is well thought through, concerns have been listened to and improvements are embraced by many.

 

Members asked questions of Councillor Count as follows:

·       Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that members need to see the proposal in the context of the overall scheme and members have not seen anywhere in this application any of the details of the scheme for the public realm to see how the relocation of the Fountain sits within that public realm improvements and asked if there is a reason for this? Councillor Count responded that the reason he referred to the entirety of the project is that the concerns of the residents and in reading all of the objection letters this is the clear direction of thinking that impacted many of the objections, ie I objected to the Fountain being moved because the traffic will not work, there is no parking, the shops will die, etc. He stated that there is nothing in the planning application regarding the public realm as it is not part of the application, the drawings associated with the public realm works which show where the Fountain is located are available and he feels that people have looked at these drawings and still objected.

·       Councillor Cornwell made the point that the committee is still expected to take a decision based upon relocation of the Fountain somewhere within the public realm that members do not have the details of, which concerns him, and asked if this is right? Councillor Count responded that this is not right, the committee has to decide based on planning matters and the application and presentation showed the clear location of where the Fountain will be located and he expanded the discussion to the wider public realm improvements due to the concerns he read in the objections and not because there is not a location identified in the information before members.

·       Councillor Cornwell asked why the planning application is being undertaken in this manner, surely there is another application to come, as normally when members look at an application the wider picture is available. Councillor Mrs Davis reminded members that this application is for the moving of the Fountain only and not the wider regeneration. Councillor Cornwell questioned that members are taking a decision based purely on moving the Fountain. Councillor Count made the point that there are elements that require planning permission and elements that do not and it is his understanding that the highways part can go ahead as it does not require planning. He added that the planning applications necessary are the demolition of the toilet block and shelter because they are in a Conservation Area and the relocation of the Fountain as it is a Listed Building in a Conservation Area and he feels it is a question for officers as to whether any of the public realm works result in a planning application being required.

·       Councillor Meekins referred to parking spaces being lost and asked how many spaces this was? Councillor Mrs Davis responded that this is not relevant to this application as the application is looking at the moving of the Fountain and not any other affects.

 

Councillor Mrs French stated that members need to be aware why these applications are before committee, with CCC starting the March Area Transport Study (MATS) in 2017/18 and early 2020 it went out to consultation, with 1,000 responses received supporting the plans and she recognises this was in the early stages of lockdown due to Covid but a good response was still received. She stated that over the years working on the plans CCC wanted to remove the Fountain altogether and proposed to either locate it in the Market Place or in West End Park, which was disagreed with by herself and Councillor Count as it was the people of March that paid for it and it should, in her view, remain in Broad Street.

 

Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that Fenland roads have been neglected for years and she was pleased that finally investment and improvements were being made in March, with the first approach being to improve Broad Street removing the traffic lights that have, in her opinion, caused problems and install a roundabout and more importantly improve the air quality. She stated that CCC officers have undertaken various modelling to reach their final plan and also had discussion with the Remembrance Parade Marshall, with the proposed site for the Fountain allowing the parade to continue.

 

Councillor Mrs French made the point that Broad Street is a highway that belongs to CCC and it does not need planning permission as it has permitted development rights under Section 62 of the Highways Act and Schedule 2, Part 9, Class A of the Town and Country Planning Act. She added that in 2021 FDC received notification that it was successful in applying for funding to improve the town centre from Central Government and additional funding from the Combined Authority.

 

Councillor Mrs French stated that last year City Fibre invested £5 million into March with their internet service and work on the Market Place has already started, with next being the replacement of the old gas pipes that are over 100 years old and subject to many gas leaks. She expressed the view that this investment into March is a once in a lifetime opportunity.

 

Councillor Mrs French stated that the application in front of members today is to remove the Fountain to safeguard it whilst the works are being undertaken and replace it once the works are completed. She expressed the hope that the middle of the Fountain will be replaced and asked members to support the application, which is March’s future.

 

Members asked questions of Councillor Mrs French as follows:

·       Councillor Sutton asked if he had heard right that Councillor Mrs French did not support moving the Fountain originally?  Councillor Mrs French responded that she did not say this, what she did say was that CCC wanted to move it out of Broad Street and this she disagreed with.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Jennifer Lawler, an objector to the proposal. Mrs Lawler stated that she is Chairman of the March Society and, in her view, there has not been the legal requirement of statutory community involvement for this Broad Street development project under Article 15 of the Development Management Procedure Order. She expressed the opinion that from conversations with hundreds of people it appears that a large proportion of the town are totally unaware, and some still are, that this major redesign of Broad Street has been planned, there was not the promised in-person consultations and by the time of the so-called face to face meetings attendees were shown details and were informed it was too late and that the redesign had to go ahead as planned.

 

Mrs Lawler stated that many people were shocked to hear that half of Broad Street would be pedestrianised and that the Listed 1912 central Coronation Fountain would be moved onto the pavement in front of shops. She feels that every household should have received a letter setting out proposals for their comments, many are not online and do not receive local newspapers and a large proportion of those that are aware are against the proposed road layout, although they do recognise the need for modernisation.

 

Mrs Lawler expressed the view that the project including the applications to be decided today are going ahead without the support of a large proportion of the March population as evidenced in written comments, at face-to-face meetings and comments on the planning applications. She stated that people question the data that the proposed layout is based on, empty roads on the artist’s impression, the wisdom in removing a west lane when the busiest shops are on the east side, no cycle lane when cycling is increasing, no disabled parking discriminated against the disabled and elderly and one main road through town.

 

Mrs Lawler referred to English Heritage stating that Conservation Areas exist to manage and protect the special architectural and historic interest of a place, extra planning controls to protect the historic and architectural elements which make a place special. She expressed the view that this is about conserving the historic environment and the setting of the Listed Coronation Fountain in March Conservation Area, it’s not just about moving a relatively rare beautiful iron work, with the Coronation Fountain being a historic landmark marking an event which took place 111 years ago, 30 January 1912, when the people of March came together to raise money by donations to mark the occasion of King George V's coronation, they paid for the Fountain and for its erection in Broad Street, its decorations represent the local Fenland environment and local wildlife and moving the fountain is comparable with moving a structure such as the Arc De Triumph from its setting, it completely loses its impact if it is moved onto a pavement at the side of the road in front of and close to shops, which will restrict views of and access to the shops affecting businesses and trade.

 

Mrs Lawler expressed concern that the Fountain would be vulnerable to vandalism, which is not a concern in its present isolated setting which is in the middle of the road where it can be seen by everyone arriving in March and is significant and important. She expressed the view that if the Fountain has to be relocated people would like it to be in a prominent central position in Broad Street worthy of its Listed status and heritage, a location nearer to the war memorial is preferred.

 

Mrs Lawler stated that the actual power of Listed status and Conservation Area to safeguard March historic environment is now questionable as in this development it appears to be meaningless which can be overridden by planners and most people have very strong feelings about these changes, people do see the need for modernisation but not the removal of the Fountain from a central position in Broad Street to then become just another piece of street furniture. She feels that by moving the Fountain the unique character of Broad Street is changed and a location nearer to the war memorial is preferred.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Fiona Bage, the agent, and Simon Machen and Phil Hughes, on behalf of the applicant. Ms Bage stated that she is a qualified Town Planner and also a heritage specialist at ELG so she is accredited by the Institute of Heritage Building Conservation, but she has not undertaken the heritage work for this scheme but is the planning agent that submitted the applications on behalf of the Council. She reiterated that what is being considered today is applications for the Fountain’s relocation and the wider highway works do not form part of the planning permission as those works are permitted development.

 

Ms Bage expressed the view that the Listed Building consent and Full planning permission is required for works to relocate the Fountain, both bring similar issues in respect of the Listed Building consent members can only consider the impact on the Listed structure itself and the planning permission brings with it other issues in respect of amenity, highways and proximity to the shop front. She stated that the intention with relocating the Fountain is to improve the setting and appreciation of this historic asset as part of the wider Broad Street public realm works, with the existing siting in between lanes of traffic does very little to enhance the setting of the structure and no works are intended to the fabric of the structure, which will be very carefully dismantled and safely stored, prior to it being re-erected in its new location which will be on the new pedestrianised area in front of 32 Broad Street. 

 

Ms Bage stated that the application is accompanied by a very detailed heritage impact assessment and no concerns are raised by Historic England, who are the national advisors on heritage matters, or the Council’s Conservation Officer. She feels that the new location of the Fountain, which will be approximately 14 metres from its current location, will allow improved appreciation of the heritage asset, whose settings has been very significantly changed since its original construction and is now very much limited in respect of how it can be appreciated by the highway junction that sits in such close proximity.

 

Ms Bage expressed the opinion that there is no harm to the fabric itself or its significance as a result of the works and the resulting impacts on the amenity of the area and the wider Conservation Area are considered to be acceptable and positive in respect of the setting of the Listed Fountain. She acknowledged that concerns have been raised that the structure will be in close proximity to the shop frontage in which it will sit but currently that existing shop front is bounded by a very narrow footpath and car parking spaces and, in her view, the relocation will create an improvement of the public realm in this area and an improved setting to the shop fronts themselves, with the Fountain forming a focal point bringing potential mutual benefits to those businesses.

 

Ms Bage stated that the structure will be set approximately 5 metres away from the front of the properties and will be a very open-sided structure, therefore, it will not hinder any views or any access to that commercial premises. She made the point that no objections have been received from any statutory consultees and the Police Designing Out Crime Team have no objection to this scheme, there is a very high level of natural surveillance in the area and it is not considered that the new location would give rise to anti-social behaviour issues over the current siting.

 

Ms Bage pointed out that Planning Officers have recommended approval of the scheme and she respectfully requested that members supported the scheme in line with the recommendation.

 

Members asked questions of Ms Bage, Mr Machen and Mr Hughes as follows:

·       Councillor Cornwell referred to the crossing over between the application that is relevant today and rest of the ideas and plans for Broad Street and he will ignore the highways elements in the statement as he realises that falls under different legislation. He feels that the scheme cannot be spilt up into isolated areas as one does affect the other and asked during the consultation was there any real response on the element of moving the Fountain? Mr Machen responded that he appreciates it is an unusual situation when members can only consider part of what appears to be a proposal but that is the legislative position and the only thing that required planning permission/Listed Building consent is moving the Fountain, all of the works in Broad Street fall within the public highway and are not something the Planning Committee has any involvement in or FDC as the Planning Authority. He feels it is clear from the plans that the location of where the Fountain would move to is shown so there is an understanding of what will happen and what it will look like and also sectional plans showing it against the buildings from different angles. Mr Machen referred to consultation which has been mentioned a number of times by different speakers, there have been for wider works in March several rounds of public consultation through initially the Growing Fenland Masterplan funded by the Combined Authority, which highlighted a number of issues including congestion in the town centre and the need for improvement, and it is in no small part that Government awarded funding for the Future High Street Project on the back of the Growing Fenland Masterplan as it showed the Council had consulted very early on what the issues where in town and come up with a package of indicative measures for how those problems could be overcome. He reiterated that there has been consultation on the Growing Fenland Masterplan on what the problem is with March Town Centre or what needs to be addressed and there has then been consultation on the MATS scheme, with a range of highway projects necessary and essential for the future growth of the town, with this proposal forming a very clear part of that package as without the Broad Street roundabout, congestion and air pollution gets worse. Mr Machen stated that if you look at the history of consultation, the MATS package came up with these measures although not in fine detail and then the highway works, with Covid not helping with the timing being outside of their control but subsequent to this sessions in the Library and on the Market stall. He stated that he has a background in growth and regeneration for over 30 years and he has been engaged by the Council for a couple of years on a number of projects including this one and he is also a Town Planner so there has been a history of consultation throughout but this is a scheme that does represent significant change, for which there are drivers for and not everybody will agree with what is proposed and often in his experience, people fear change and its implications and in many ways it seems counter intuitive that you go from 4 lanes of traffic to 2 but all of the traffic modelling demonstrates that it will be better and this project fits in all of this future proofing of March to make it less congested and a better experience, but he does recognises that members can only look at one small part of it.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that what concerns him are the latter stages of the consultation that took place after Covid, which was undertaken in a manner that was against FDC’s own Consultation Strategy and asked for confirmation of this. Mr Machen responded that the fourth strand of consultation which he omitted to mention was consultation on these applications before members today and residents have had an opportunity to make their feelings known, with March being a fairly big town and not everyone has objected. Mr Hughes stated that there was the Growing Fenland consultation, the MATS consultation, the consultation before the application to Government was submitted, there has been plans on the website, consultation at the Library and March Market Place, with officers having discussions with people who came along. He advised that on those more recent discussions people were asked to submit feedback and some was received, but in terms of the Fountain relocation there was various feedback from leave it where it is, which is not possible if the junction is to be achieved at the northern end of Broad Street which is uncongested, or move it to the Market Place/West End Park and in assessing where the Fountain ought to be moved to the decision was taken with members to move it as smaller distance as possible so that it remains at the northern end of Broad Street and as members would see from the application Historic England agree with relocation to as close to where it currently sits to retain its historical impact within March.

·       Councillor Cornwell referred to some of the feedback stated that the Fountain should be left where it is and asked if they did not feel that this was a valid argument for those people who saw its position as being preferable to some of the other ideas being put forward. Mr Machen responded that a situation is being drifted into that is not about planning. Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she had taken advice and reiterated that members are merely looking at the application to move the Fountain, it not about where the Fountain goes and it is not about the whole regeneration scheme.

·       Councillor Sutton made the point that there is an application in front of members to move the Fountain to a specific place and if he heard right, Councillor Mrs Davis is saying it is not about where it is moved just about moving it, which he does not feel is right. Councillor Mrs Davis responded that she stands corrected.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor asked if it is too far down the track to find a different place for the relocation as she has read some of the comments and Mrs Lawler in her presentation suggested further down Broad Street towards the war memorial and asked if this is not a possibility or has it already been looked at and how many other sites have been looked at that members are not aware of. Mr Machen responded that planning is not generally about making a choice where things should be or what they should be it is when an application is before committee they need to determine what is in front of them, but it is unusual to move a Listed Building and in this instance it is an unusual Listed Building and Historic England support the application and they have clearly looked at it in a lot of detail and the starting point is if you are going to move a Listed Building you should move it the least distance from where it currently is as the further you move it the less relevance it has to its original setting and it can be better appreciated in its new location. He expressed the view that if you move it closer to the war memorial it may begin to conflict with the setting of the war memorial itself and where it is proposed is the shortest distance from where it is now and still sits within its own distinct setting, it is also important to understand that what happens around the Fountain is very different to what happened when it was historically put in its current location as it was not in the middle of a road with cars and lorries and probably would not put it in this location today. Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that she is not saying she is against the Fountain being moved but she thinks it should be looked at in a different location.

 

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Cornwell referred to Paragraph 5.6 of the officer’s report where it refers to March Town Council and there being no comment and asked surely there was a subsequent comment as this is why some colleagues cannot sit and hear the applications? Nikki Carter responded that Paragraph 5.6 is copied and pasted from March Town Council’s comments and they are the only comments received. David Rowen added that the comments within the report at Paragraph 5.6 are the comments that were submitted by March Town Council, the discussions that March Town Council may have had separately to their formal representation on this application officers do not know about these and can only report the comments that come in on the application.

·       Councillor Benney referred to the mention of consultation and asked if the legal statutory consultation had taken place for this application? Nick Harding responded that the speakers referred to consultation taking place through the course of the proposals which is distinct from the consultation on these planning applications and he is satisfied that the relevant consultation from a legislative and planning perspective has been complied with.

 

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

·       Councillor Cornwell expressed the opinion that any move to change a long-standing structure is bound to cause considerable interest and the Fountain is one of these as people have said it was provided by public subscription 111 years ago and has been in this position ever since and was also the indicator of the war memorial which was erected in 1922. He feels relocating the Fountain now to a position that is slightly at odds with the layout of Broad Street is strange and listening to the comments of Councillor Mrs Mayor about whether another location can be found in Broad Street probably in line with where it should be at the moment would perhaps be better but he does not think any relocation is going to be popular. Councillor Cornwell expressed confusion with some of the way this planning application has gone and the continual reference to things that members have no control of or have no information about and he feels rather let down as if this was an application for a development members would want to see the bigger picture so that it was known what members were taking decisions about and in this case members do not have it which he finds strange and slightly confusing.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor agreed with the comments of Councillor Cornwell as she feels members have got part of something and members do not know what the rest of it is about, preferring to see a whole rather than a piece.

·       Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that it should be the remit of March Councillors to decide what happens in March, but he is on the Planning Committee and there is an application in front of members which is policy compliant and whether members want to see the wider information for the overall scheme this does not form part of what is being considered. He stated that whilst members might be interested, as he is, to see what is happening around in March, this is not what this application is about, it is about moving a Listed Building 14 metres and if English Heritage and other historic organisations are supporting this move members are not qualified to go against that and he feels that officers have got this application correct in terms of policy and consultation. Councillor Benney made the point that there are certain aspects of any public realm works that people will object to and there are also aspects that people think are good and bad and looking at the whole proposal for March he feels there is a lot of good in it and it will improve the air quality and allow the traffic flow to be managed appropriately, with March becoming the biggest town eventually due to the development in the pipeline and this provides an opportunity with a lot of money having been given to March and whilst he accepts it is not to everyone’s taste there is always the greater good and if action is not taken to allow this to happen problems are going to be caused in the future which will exasperate the problems in March. He is very reassured with the mapping that the traffic flow is right on the wider scheme, with the bridge being the pinch point and getting rid of the traffic lights should alleviate the traffic as well as the roundabout. Councillor Benney reiterated that this application is policy compliant and he can see no reasons to turn it down, with it future proofing the centre of March.

·       Councillor Sutton queried how keen Councillor Benney would be if there was a fountain in Chatteris and it was proposed to be moved in front of one of his shops? He feels there is plenty of reasons to refuse this if this is the committee’s wish as the reasons for granting it are, in his opinion, subjective. Councillor Sutton referred to the consultation and if you look at what a consultation should be on the Government website it gives specific advice on what a consultation should be and he has heard from many people that their views were not taken into account and listened to, which, in his view, is not a consultation but a demonstration of what is coming and he feels it is shameful on this Council to pretend that it is consultation. He referred to the Localism Act which brought in that people are to be consulted with, are listened to and are taken notice of and he questioned what happened after this consultation, was anything changed, no results have been seen so, in his view, it was not a consultation but a demonstration to the people of March. Councillor Sutton referred to Historic England who state that they support the application but they do mention consultancy (he made the point that he was not aiming the comments at planning officers and their professionalism) and the Council employs a firm of consultants to give it advice but in the real world if he wanted an answer he would be employing somebody that was going to give him the answer he wants and he feels this is what has happened here. He referred to public access and all the comments and letters and whilst there may only be 200 in objection when you put that against the amount in support there is not a single letter of support and asked how can members possibly impose this proposal on the town of March. Councillor Sutton queried how the position was reached that there was £8.4 million to invest in March Town Centre and nobody has been consulted, nobody agrees with the proposal, the only people he has heard speak positive on it are the two councillors who spoke earlier, with two councillors speaking against it and all 4 councillors are March Town Councillors but the difference between them is that Councillor Skoulding and Clark have history in March and he feels they should be listened to, with the businesses and residents not wanting this scheme and he does not feel the Fountain should be moved in front of Malletts shop, which is a disgrace.

·       Nick Harding reminded members that the decision they are making today is about the Fountain and is not about the wider street work scheme so the issue of the consultation arrangements for those street works is not relevant to the decision today. He stated that members cannot use the street works as a reason to refuse the application, this is all about whether or not the proposal is harmful or not to the Listed structure.

·       Councillor Sutton expressed the view that it is not just about whether it is harmful to that structure but whether it is harmful to the place it is being relocated to and those businesses that surround it.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that as a March Councillor he is concerned about this proposal as March Broad Street is the centre of the town, with March probably being the most vibrant of the four market towns in Fenland and March is always busy, busier during certain times of the day, and people will queue and people need to remember that the proposal will actually, related to the Fountain, create a roundabout and if you look at March Broad Street at the moment the whole of Broad Street is a roundabout so a big roundabout is being replaced with a smaller one. He referred to consultation, not the consultation relative to the planning application but the failed public consultation about the whole joint schemes and, in his opinion, it does not comply with the Council’s own Consultation Strategy, which says “only consult if you are willing to make changes based on responses do not consult on decisions already made” and he feels this describes it all as the Council has not complied with its own Public Consultation Strategy.

·       Councillor Sutton asked to see the photos on the presentation screen again and stated that it unfortunately does not show clearly on the right most arch the depiction of the Stone Cross which is local to and associated with the history of March and this is the problem with people out of town being involved as it says it is a depiction of the Tower of Babel, which is a biblical myth. Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she is finding it hard to know what point Councillor Sutton is making as nothing is changing on the Fountain and it is only being moved. Councillor Sutton responded that it is the principle of people coming in from outside the town and knowing nothing about it. Councillor Mrs Davis made the point that this is not a material planning issue. Councillor Sutton disagreed.

·       Councillor Sutton referred to the modelling. Nick Harding stated that this is not material to the determination of this planning application. Councillor Sutton acknowledged that it may not be but feels it shows the background to the moving of the Fountain and made the point that Councillor Benney was not pulled up when he mentioned the modelling. Councillor Mrs Davis responded that Councillor Benney asked a proper question and raised a proper point. Councillor Sutton referred to Councillor Benney mentioning the bridge but expressed the view that this is not where the congestion is, it is not going south out of the town, the congestion comes going north into the town and looking at the modelling it is difficult to see and get exact numbers because the two elements are modelled together and you are unable to see when it first starts and comes into a bigger picture so he feels the modelling is flawed as the numbers are not right. Councillor Mrs Davis stopped Councillor Sutton as whilst in his opinion what he is saying is relevant to the application, in her view, it is not in terms of planning legislation. 

·       Councillor Marks stated that he has listened to what has been said and he feels it comes down to one thing, is the character of central March going to be ruined, does the Fountain need to be moved but if a roundabout needs to be put here then it needs to be moved, is this going to help town centres when it is being stated that everyone is internet shopping so town centres are dying anyway so why is money being wasted moving it. He stated that his biggest concern is by moving it just 14 metres, when members are being told it is in the middle of the town where nobody can get to it so it is actually protected, there will be takeaway signs, people eating takeways under it and does this not detract from what it actually is, which is a monument given 112 years ago, its come through 112 years and suddenly it needs to be moved and he does not quite follow the logic unless it is hand in hand with the roundabout apart from that leave alone. Councillor Marks made the point that earlier it was said that the Fountain is not actually in bad condition and can be removed fairly easily but there was a comment that the base has a problem and needs money finding for repair so in one breath members are being told by experts the Fountain is fine and in another breath being told there are issues with it so which one is it, does it need money spending on it and is it going to take more harm by trying to move it.

·       Councillor Benney stated that whether it will be harmed by moving it is not what committee is looking at today and what is being looked at is the Fountain going to move 14 metres, with all the rest of it being scenery and fluff and the committee is here to look at policy. He expressed the view that whether it can be moved or not is a technical issue not a planning issue.

·       Councillor Sutton disagreed with Councillor Benney’s comments as, in his view, it is all about substantial harm and it states in the report that weight can be added or removed regarding substantial harm to the significance of the asset.

·       Nick Harding reminded members that their decision needs to be based around whether or not the displacement of this heritage asset would be detrimental to it and that is not in the context of physical damage to it whilst deconstructing it and assembling it again that is a technical issue, it is whether or not in its current location its heritage significance is so great that moving it 14 metres would irrevocably damage that quality of the heritage asset and its setting.

·       Councillor Marks asked for clarification, so if the Fountain is moved and there is more footfall around it resulting in damage can that be taken into consideration. Nick Harding responded that if the property is demonstrably at greater risk of being damaged as a consequence of it being moved then that would be a legitimate consideration but there is not any evidence that this is necessarily going to be the case. Councillor Marks made the point that at the moment people are not walking around it or in it as there would be with the footfall where it is proposed to be moved to and asked officers if they agreed? Nick Harding responded that he is not sufficiently knowledgeable about the use of it by people in its current position so he is unable to comment.

·       Councillor Marks asked to look at the photograph in the presentation again as it has railings around it at present time and whilst you can get in and out of it, it is less open than it would be in its new proposed location with no railings around it at all and asked officers if they agreed. Nick Harding responded that it would be difficult to balance whether or not in its current location it is more susceptible to damage by vehicles potentially as opposed to damage by people, there is no strong evidence in either instance.

·       Shane Luck, CCC Highways Officer, stated that the Fountain in its current location, whilst he appreciates it has not happened to date, is at greater risk of vehicle strike because it is in the middle of an active highway and its relocation to what would be a footway in the public realm increases accessibility for pedestrians but it does decrease the risk from motorised vehicles. Councillor Marks made the point that the Fountain has been in its location 112 years and to the best of the Mr Luck’s knowledge it has not been damaged by lorries, buses, cars, however, by moving it where pedestrians with pushchairs and trolleys, etc, could actually hit it but that should not be taken into consideration because it has not been hit where it is at the present time. Mr Luck responded that what he is saying is that while it has not happened historically to the best of his knowledge and the likelihood is low but if it is hit by a motorised vehicle the potential for severe damage is greater than if it is hit by a pedestrian.

 

F/YR22/1318/LB

 

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Cornwell that the application be REFUSED against officer’s recommendation as they feel that moving of the structure would result in it being in a less appropriate position, which would be detrimental to the character and setting of that structure. This was not supported on a vote by the majority of members.

 

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs Mayor and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation.

 

F/YR22/1332/FDC

 

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Mayor, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation.

 

(Councillors Connor declared that he is perceived to be pre-determined and had proposed a motion on this application and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon. Councillor Mrs Davis took the Chair for this item)

 

(Councillor Benney declared that he is a member of Cabinet but is not pre-determined and will approach the application with an open mind)

 

(Councillor Mrs French declared an interest in this application, by virtue of being a member of MATS and the Member High Street Steering Group, and after speaking as part of the public participation took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

 

(Councillor Murphy declared that he is a member of Cabinet but is not biased or pre-determined and will approach the application with an open mind)

 

(Councillor Purser declared an interest in this application, by virtue of being a member of MATS, and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

 

(Councillor Skoulding declared that he was pre-determined on this application and after speaking during the public participation took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)