Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report the members.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks stated that the previous application, which was also an abandoned site and allegedly a brownfield site, had not been used for 15 years and the application before the committee now, in his view, is the same as the site has not been used for at least 20 years. He added that the site has been cleaned and has overgrowth, and questioned whether the site is classed as a greenfield site.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he knows the site and, in his view, it has been in that state for at least 25 years.

·         David Rowen explained that the site being considered is of a slightly different nature, including the scale, considering whether it has actually returned and blended into the natural form of the area, which, in his view, it has not. He expressed the view that the most important aspect to consider is that the site is in the core of the settlement as opposed to a site on the edge of the settlement and the principle of the development of a site whether its brownfield or greenfield within the built form of a settlement is deemed acceptable under the policies of the Local Plan.

·         Councillor Imafidon questioned whether the architects worked with the officers when considering the design and layout of the site? David Rowen stated that to the best of his knowledge there has not been any pre-application enquiry submitted on the site in relation to the development.

·         Councillor Connor asked whether there is enough amenity space associated with the proposed dwellings on the site and will there be enough space to allow for vegetable patches on the site or will the area be covered by tarmac or concrete? David Rowen stated that it is evident from the site plan that all the units have the necessary amenity space as set out in Policy LP6 of the Local Plan. He added that with regards to the remediation of the site, there are comments within the officer’s report made by Environmental Health with regards to the need to add cleaner soil on the site and, therefore, he is assuming that the long term intention for any redevelopment of the site would be that ultimately that the soil would be clean enough to be a conventional garden.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that the application form for the proposal does not indicate that there has been any pre-application.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she knows the site very well as it forms part of her District and Town Council ward, and she believes the site has not been used for maybe 30 years. She expressed the opinion that as far as she is concerned the proposal is over development of the site, especially when taking into consideration Kirk Ogden Close and the various other elderly persons bungalows in the town. Councillor Mrs French stated that to suggest that the car parking for the proposed site is located away from the actual dwellings is, in her view, a nonsense. She added that the 1 metre width footpath is not wide enough to accommodate a disability wheelchair, and she believes it is highly unsuitable. Councillor Mrs French added that the application for site is overdeveloped and whilst the site is right to be developed there does need to be the correct development on it.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the view that the application must be one of the worst applications he has ever come across. He added that he knows the site very well as his father used to operate a scrap yard from the site almost 44 years ago and he added that he can categorically advise the committee that the site is very contaminated, and he has serious concerns that the arsenic at the site along with the other contamination will last thousands of years. Councillor Connor added that he is also concerned that even by adding 2ft of soil to the surface it will still not remediate the situation. He stated that the 19 dwellings which received planning permission some years ago, never came forward as it was unviable and now the current proposal is not only unviable, it also a bad case of putting the application before the committee. Councillor Connor added that the officer’s have made the correct recommendation and stated that he agrees with Councillor Mrs French that there could be some sort of development on the site, however, this is not the right application for the site. Councillor Connor referred to the email which had been circulated to the Planning Committee members and he stated that, in his opinion, members should take no notice of the content of the email and the application should be refused and the applicant should be asked to submit a more comprehensive and better application to come before the committee and he recommended to the committee to refuse the proposal.

·         Councillor Purser stated that he also knows the site well and agrees that the application is not viable and should be refused.

Proposed by Councillor Imafidon, seconded by Councillor Purser and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillors Connor, Imafidon and Marks declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on the application but will remain open minded)

(Councillor Mrs French declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a member of March Town Council but takes no part in Planning)

(Councillor Purser declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a Member of March Town Council and is a Member of their Planning Committee but there is nothing on the agenda that affects his decision making)