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 David Harrison, an objector. Mr Harrison stated that he lives at 89 Upwell Road so this application concerns him more than most people and from Cavalry Drive roundabout to this site the majority of properties on Upwell Road are bungalows, on the south side there are 20 and on the north side there are 16 and there is Upwell Park which are bungalows at the back of some other bungalows so he queried how the applicant can think there can be houses behind bungalows. He expressed the view that it is going to affect his wife and himself for the rest of their lives if these properties are allowed to be built as if they look out of their back windows or are in their garden all they are going to see is a 25 foot brick wall, which can oversee the neighbours gardens as well as his and also the property opposite, Plot 1, will be able to look into his garden so he will have no privacy at all.

Mr Harrison expressed the opinion that with all the surrounding bungalows it would be a better option for this proposal to be bungalows, which would enable him to keep his privacy.

Members asked questions to Mr Harrison as follows:

·       Councillor Marks asked Mr Harrison to confirm what number property he lived at. Mr Harrison responded 89 and when he put plans in for his property, which is an H shape bungalow, the middle of the trusses on the roof were supposed to have been higher but the Council told him that he had got to have this the same as the outside of the roof so his had to be lower which this proposal for houses now contradicts what he had to do.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey made the point that the site has an existing outline planning permission granted in July 2021 for 6 dwellings, a Reserved Matters application was put in and changed during the course of the application due to the attenuation pond being outside the boundary although it was included in the outline planning permission and from discussions with the officer it was felt the best way forward was to amend the application from a Reserved Matters to a Full application. He reiterated that the site has valid outline permission and lies in Flood Zone 1 in a town centre location, with March Town Council recommending approval and Highways, Environmental Services, Environmental Health, Natural England and the Wildlife Officer having no objection.

Mr Humphrey referred to a late letter from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) on 19 January which has been sent to their consultants and feels they have come back sending a letter to officers today with some response on the concerns from the LLFA, which he feels can be agreed by condition. He stated that this proposal has been discussed with officers and they were led to believe it was going in the right direction only for the last minute check with the Development Manager who all of sudden said it was not being supported so he feels a bit aggrieved that they had been negotiating and then told that it was going to committee with a recommendation for refusal so there has been no chance to discuss or negotiate this.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she knows this site exceptionally well, with Upwell Road on 23 December 2020 being flooded, along with the majority of March, and further down Upwell Road there are 9 properties where a riparian dyke has been filled in with garages and sheds and enforcement has been out from Cambridgeshire County Council, as this is her County Council division, and unfortunately the people who have put these structures on and covered up the dyke are going to be requested to remove them and dig it out. She made the point that if you read the report from LLFA it has to be taken seriously as she has been working on the flood group since December 2020 with March being the only place in the whole of County that has now had everything mapped so she cannot support this application as it would possibly cause a problem, with the biggest problem being the owners of the dykes who are at fault.

·       Councillor Purser agreed with the comments of Councillor Mrs French and stated that he cannot support this application, he thinks the officers are right to refuse as it is a bad flood plain basin.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he takes on board what Councillor Mrs French says about the ditch and quite rightly that needs to be addressed one way or another, but to suggest that this proposal is going to make that particular problem worse when there is a proposal for a flood scheme is unproven. He stated that he does take on board Mr Harrison’s point about having two-storey dwellings against single-storey so if the proposal had been for single-storey and recommended for refusal he would probably had a different opinion but feels this application has several factors going against it.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that irrespective of the flooding issues, which she sympathises with anyone who has this issue especially when there is a riparian drain involved, 11.3 of the officer’s report does mention about the size of the dwellings and she acknowledges that there is outline planning permission but she also has an issue in her ward in Whittlesey where houses have been built and are overlooking into bungalow gardens and the residents cannot actually be in their property because the houses can see in their windows. She expressed the view that had proposal been for 6 bungalows she may have looked at the application slightly different and she appreciates that bungalows take a bigger footprint than a house so if there are only 4 bungalows so what as, in her opinion, the properties should be bungalows backing onto the existing bungalows.

·       Councillor Cornwell agreed that single-storey properties on this site, subject to a suitable drainage condition, would be far more acceptable. He queried whether it is the idea of the pond draining into a dyke is into the same dyke that that has been filled in and if so the water will not get away anyway. Councillor Mrs French indicated this to be the case. Councillor Cornwell stated that this put a different emphasis on it which is why the LLFA have made their comments but if the dyke is not a dyke or a complete dyke then how is the water going to drain away but even if there was a solution to this he feels that single-storey dwellings in this location to match the other single-storey dwellings is preferable.

·       Councillor Mrs French clarified that this Council has a cemetery in the vicinity and last year the Council had to clean part of its dyke as it was flooding and all the water goes into the same dyke that does not drain away properly and members will be aware that when cemeteries flood graves lift.

·       Councillor Murphy agreed with the comments of Mr Harrison, making the point that he lives in a bungalow which has a house behind with a very large extension and he has to shut his curtains early in the evening as they can look straight into his property so he does know what it feels like and would not wish it on anyone else.

·       Councillor Sutton made the point that there was some surface water flooding on the site when it was visited so there clearly is a drainage issue on this site.

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

(Councillor Skoulding declared an interest, by virtue of owning land beside this application site, and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillors Connor, Mrs French and Purser registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they were members of March Town Council but take no part in planning)

(Councillor Benney left the meeting after this item and was not present for the remaining agenda items)