Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke 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 Mead, the agent. Mr Mead made the point that this is an application for a Permission in Principle, which is to demonstrate the principle of a certain form of residential development is acceptable in a certain location up to a certain size and this case is slightly unusual as this is an allocated site within the built up area within the Broad Concept Plan (BCP) for development to the west of March. He stated that the proposal being suggested is for up to 3 dwellings but this could be 1, 2 or 3 but that is the whole point of Permission in Principle it is just to establish the principle and the only information that needs to be submitted is a red line plan.

Mr Mead stated that the site is half an acre for up to 3 dwellings even allowing for part of the site, but not a significant part, to provide a spine road which is unlikely to be much more than 10 metres wide the frontage of the site itself outlined in red is 50 metres and the depth of the site is another 50 metres and if you take the frontage from the western front corner of the site to the eastern far boundary which is the land up against the bungalow at 181 Burrowmoor Road it is 80 metres to allow for an access road and 3 dwellings. In his view, there is enough information to demonstrate that it can fit and the slide that showed the position of the spine road, accepting it is only indicative on the BCP, also demonstrates that there is room for both.

Mr Mead expressed the opinion that what happens next, if this is approved, is they go to the technical detail stage, which provides all of the details required to demonstrate clearly how the development can take place showing the exact position and layout of any element of the spine road and the position, design, elevations, floor plans and drainage that you would expect in a full application. He reiterated that this application is only asking for the principle and it is nothing else apart from this.

Members asked questions of Mr Mead as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked how far away this site is from Cherryholt Farm? Mr Mead responded that the western boundary of the site is approximately 45 metres from the farmhouse.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French questioned that as this land has been in the BCP for several years so with the recommendation being for refusal are officers saying, she does not know what is happening with the rest of land with her understanding there are about 25 landowners here and she assumes this landowner wants to go on their own, would it have a detrimental effect on any other land? David Rowen responded that the reason for the recommendation of refusal is that officers have concerns that by granting Permission in Principle to locate houses on this piece of land potentially the northern link to the BCP between Burrowmoor Road and Gaul Road would be prejudiced and this could have an implication on bringing forward development on the wider northern portion of the strategic allocation. Councillor Mrs French made the point that the committee is looking at what is front of them today not what might happen in the future so surely it is up to the other landowners even if it is in the BCP so it could be argued that the other land prejudices this application. David Rowen agreed that you could make the argument that the BCP is impacting on this piece of land and it has done with a couple of previous applications, however, the policies of the Local Plan are clear that when dealing with applications for small parcels of land within the BCP consideration has to be given to the consequences of that and whether by granting those applications there would be a prejudicial effect on delivery of the wider BCP and this could potentially lead to the loss of the access area. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that this application is only a Permission in Principle so she cannot see, if this was approved, that it would have a detrimental effect and it might make the other landowners come forward as this land has been allocated for many years, she believes over 20 years, and Cherryholt Farm is a Listed Building but is a wreck and for a Listed Building the Council should have taken action years ago as it is only fit now to be demolished.

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

·       Councillor Benney made the point that from what the agent said this is a 50 metre square piece of land, there is land around this and as much as this may block a road going through it the landowner could equally say I am not part of it and not sell it, which would equally block it and then they would find a way to go around it. He stated at his first planning committee meeting there was an application for 27 houses in Stow Lane, Wisbech that was in the corner of a BCP and members were told that this would have a detrimental impact on the BCP which members were told was coming forward and committee turned this down, which he voted against and the BCP has never come about and 27 houses have been lost in Wisbech, which would have provided homes for people. Councillor Benney stated that he agrees with Councillor Mrs French, bringing this land forward may result in the other landowners getting their act together and start bringing this forward as every landowner thinks his land is worth a fortune so they hang onto it and that is why the BCPs have not progressed. He does not think the road would stop the BCP coming forward and thinks there is good merit in allowing this application and if nothing else it sends a message to the other landowners.

·       Councillor Purser notes what Councillor Benney has said and the fact that it is regarded as being allocated land, but he was led to believe many years ago this piece of land or that area had a very bad history of flooding, which concerns him and he visited the site and the bend where this site is on is deadly as people speed up and down here and you would take your life in your hands coming out of this junction.

·       David Rowen stated that he accepts some of the arguments that have been made in terms of the potential delivery of housing on the site and it is within members gift to go against officer’s recommendation and grant Permission in Principle but the one issue he would flag for consideration is the delivery of 3 houses versus prejudicing the delivery of a couple of hundred houses.

Proposed by Councillor Purser to support officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission, which did not receive a seconder.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation.

Members did not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel the proposal makes efficient use of land, it is allocated within the BCP and will not be detrimental to the rest of the allocation and it may possibly make the other landowners within the BCP area come forward.

(Councillor Connor declared, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he was a member of March Town Council when this application was considered by the Town Council but took no part in their planning)

(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)