Agenda item

To determine the application.

Graham Smith presented the report to members and drew attention to the update 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 Victoria Batterham, an objector. Mrs Batterham stated that she does not have any particularly new points but wanted to reinforce the views of local residents, 500 people that have all raised very valid and similar concerns about this application. She referred to those concerns being in relation to the traffic in the area and the flooding and when they have looked at some of the reports the methodology, in residents opinion, does not seem to be factually or reliably evidence based on what residents see on a daily basis in terms of traffic, danger and accidents, with there being several accidents in Cavalry Drive with children at school particularly on the bend where people have been hit by on-going traffic.

Mrs Batterham referred to flooding in the area, she has provided numerous photographs where homes have flooded on more than one occasion and as local residents they have had a problem where nobody wants to take responsibility for this, highways and Anglian Water do not want to take responsibility. She read out the comments of Anglian Water at 5.15 of the report and made the point that the foul water network in the area was constructed many years ago when there was far less people living in the area and Anglian Water have also stated that the connection is acceptable but adding further developments to this system which is already overloaded is one of the main concerns of residents.

Mrs Batterham stated that members are receiving a summary report but are not reviewing all the information separately and when you are reviewing the information separately, particularly the developers reports which sometimes conflict against each other, it is very important rather than reading the summarised evidence.

Members asked questions of Mrs Batterham as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if Mrs Batterham lived in Upwell Road or Cavalry Drive? Mrs Batterham responded that she lives in Cavalry Drive.

·       Councillor Marks asked what Mrs Batterham believes is the accident rate in the vicinity? Mrs Batterham responded that cars are parked both sides of the road, visibility is very difficult and there are near misses all the time even trying to access her own property at certain times of the day. She is aware of 4 accidents in the area and this is in the last 3 years, 2 with children near the school and 2 with adults crossing on the bend.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ian Reilly, on behalf of the applicant. Mr Reilly stated that he is Head of Planning for Allison Homes and the application under consideration is an outline one for 110 dwellings with all matters reserved apart from access. He expressed the view that the development will deliver market housing and 20% affordable housing provision, with the principle of development having been established through the windfall policy in the current Local Plan, however, it is also worth noting that this site has been identified as a draft housing allocation in the emerging Local Plan, which, in his view, underlines its suitability for development of this nature and scale.

Mr Reilly stated that Allison Homes and its consultant team have worked closely with planning officers and the issues identified by consultees have been resolved to their satisfaction, many of which have been raised by the public and other stakeholders and he believes this has been fully covered in the committee report and thanked officers for providing such a detailed and positive report which confirms that there are no outstanding technical matters to be resolved at this stage. He stated that they have reviewed the draft planning conditions and the new ones discussed today and can confirm that they are acceptable in principle to Allison Homes.

Mr Reilly expressed the view that whilst the proposal is in outline, its technical assessments confirm there would be a SUD pond provided for drainage purposes at the south-eastern corner of the site and a 3 metre drainage easement on the eastern boundary, with a buffer also provided for biodiversity benefit. He made the point that they have also agreed to provide enhancements to some of the school crossings, with these works consisting of tactile paving and dropped kerbs.

Mr Reilly stated that the application seeks to agree access at this point and to implement the access the speed bumps in Upwell Road need to be relocated and he confirmed that the formal application for relocation of these speed bumps has been approved by Highways already. He made the point that as the application is in outline, they have proposed parameter plans to set the principles for the development, which include confirmation that the houses will be outward facing to the public right of way, the provision of a policy compliant area of open space with a new play area which will be overlooked to provide surveillance and an upgrade to the existing right of way both on the southern and western boundaries, with these enhancements having been agreed with Fenland District Council’s Estates Team and a Section 106 Legal Agreement will be formulated to secure the affordable housing in perpetuity and also provide £76,000 of contributions to NHS, libraries and highway improvements.

Mr Reilly expressed the opinion that this would be a sustainable development, fully in accordance with the current Local Plan, the emerging Local Plan and the relevant parts of the NPPF, they have worked with officers and consultees so that all technical issues can be achieved at this stage of the planning process and through its parameter plans it has set out some important principles that will shape and guide the detailed design for this site. He stated that Allison Homes is committed to delivering this site and should approval be forthcoming it will bring forward a Reserved Matters application before the end of the year with the aim of being on site within 6 months of that approval and, in his view, the site will help maintain the Council’s housing supply and bring forward much needed quality and affordable homes for the District.

Members asked questions of Mr Reilly as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if he had been in contact with the Internal Drainage Board (IDB)? Mr Reilly responded that they undertake a lot of pre-application consultation and there are statutory consultees as part of the planning process so he would assume they have spoken to them but cannot guarantee it but if this has not taken place it will happen through the planning process. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that the drainage boards have not been contacted and she has a letter from the Internal Drainage Board which says the remainder of the site is within the Board’s rateable area and the Board, not the Lead Local Flood Authority, are the approving authority and its prior written consent is required for relevant items so, in her view, it is essential the applicant should be talking to the drainage board. Mr Reilly expressed the view that this is disappointing to hear that this has not happened.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Marks asked, in relation to IDB with it being quite important for water to be pumped away and it starts with the IDB before it goes to Anglian Water, how much weight can members put on what has been said? Graham Smith responded that the drainage board works come under the powers of the Land Drainage Acts which he believes are stated in the comments and operate separately to planning acts and the applicant has to rightly communicate with the IDB to comply with the Drainage Act but that entire operation takes place outside of the planning process. He stated that if the applicant cannot accord with the Land Drainage Acts then the IDB has the power to control the fact that the site cannot be built out and the final comments from the IDB is about management and funding and including items within the deeds of the properties, none of which relates to planning considerations. Graham Smith made the point that this is an outline application where the details are not being approved or considered so it is just the principle and the Lead Flood Authority are the drainage authority responsible for planning matters, who have commented and have taken the lead on where the application goes and their point is that everything has to accord with their conditions. Councillor Marks made the point that the IDB are responsible for taking the water and they have not been consulted from day one and it concerns him as it is known there is flooding here and Anglian Water will take the foul but there is still water running off the land and the IDB has not been consulted. David Rowen responded that the IDB were consulted and committee members will be familiar with not receiving any comments from them, however, from a planning point of view the Local Lead Flood Authority at County Council are the statutory consultees on drainage matters. He stated that the IDB comments are important but it has a separate consenting regime.

·       Councillor Connor questioned that he had heard right that Highways had commented that St Peters Road does not have too many traffic issues because, in his view, it does and he uses the road frequently and you always have to wait for other cars to come through. Graham Smith responded that he was reading the response from Highways to the additional objection comments and this is correct.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French acknowledged that the IDBs are not statutory consultees but the question she asked the agent was had they contacted the IDB and they had not, which, in her view, it is fundamental that the IDB is consulted. She expressed the opinion that the application is not in the 2014 Local Plan, it is not in March Neighbourhood Plan which March Town Council took considerable time, effort and cost to produce and it clearly states that this application is in the emerging Local Plan but members have been told repeatedly that the emerging Local Plan is not further enough along for weight to be given to it. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that this application is premature, there are various PCPs and larger allocations, reading out the comments from March Town Council. She stated that March Neighbourhood Plan supersedes everything and she cannot support this application.

·       Councillor Marks stated he has a real concern about drainage but also highways and questioned whether it was another highways desktop survey as he feels they may not have visited the site.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she sits on MATS and has done so since 2017 and she can assure members there are great problems here, a Zebra crossing was installed last year and the next plan is redesigning the top of St Peters Road, which is currently awful and is not going to support another 200 vehicles. She reiterated that it is not in the policies and is not an allocated site.

·       Councillor Purser agreed with the comments of Councillors Mrs French and Marks.

·       David Rowen acknowledged that the site is not allocated in either the 2014 Local Plan or the March Neighbourhood Plan, however, both these documents do have policies regarding windfall development on the edge of towns and the edge of March in particular in the Neighbourhood Plan, with windfall development defined in the Local Plan as being anything under 249 dwellings and the Neighbourhood Plan effectively supports the provisions so proposals for residential development will be supported where they meet the provision of the Fenland Local Plan so from a principle point of view the adopted Local Plan and March Neighbourhood Plan would not resist the development of this site. He referred to issues of drainage which have been covered already but the primary issue is that the statutory consultee does not raise any objection. David Rowen stated that in relation to Highways the Highway Authority are not raising any issues regarding highway safety implications of the development and there has been robust consideration of the highway information between the Highway Authority and the case officer to check and double check that the comments that they are making are correct. He expressed the opinion that if members are minded to go with refusal of the application there are very few grounds on which the application could be refused and successfully defended at appeal.

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

The Legal Officer reminded members that if the application is refused the Planning Authority will be expected to substantiate the reasons for refusal and from what has been said by the planning officer he would struggle to know what planning reasons could be given for refusal that would stand on an appeal, for example the Highway Authority do not object and the committee does not have highways expertise.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of grant of planning permission as the site is not allocated for development in either the adopted 2014 Local Plan or the March Neighbourhood Plan and the emerging Local Plan is insufficiently advanced to carry significant weight in terms of decision making at this time and the site’s current allocation within this is not, therefore, considered to outweigh the conflict with the adopted Development Plan in terms of the principle of the development being unacceptable by virtue of the site’s undesignated nature.

(Councillor Hicks registered that he has close family friends that reside in a property that backs onto this site, and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(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)

(Councillors Benney, Mrs French, Marks and Purser declared, under Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on this application)