Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alan Davies presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Penney, the agent. Ms Penney referred to the access issue and referred members to Paragraph 5.5 of the officer’s report, which shows that the Highway Authority has not objected to the proposal and has confirmed it is an outline application with all matters reserved so access is not for approval at this stage and they have also noted that the current drawing does not provide detailed information on access but crucially they have confirmed that these matters will be fully considered at the Reserved Matters stage. She feels this alludes to the fact that they raise no objection in principle and confirms that any potential concerns can and will be resolved later so this should not prevent the committee from supporting the principle of development.

Ms Penney stated that the site is currently a working farm generating movements of vehicles of all sizes at any time, with the retained farmhouse already accommodating this and it is submitted that the introduction of 9 dwellings would not harmfully increase traffic over and above the existing situation and this further reinforces the acceptability of the access arrangements. She expressed the view, from a location perspective, the site is adjacent to the built-up area of March, a market town under Policy LP3, and it falls within the West March strategic allocation, which has an approved Broad Concept Plan.

Ms Penney expressed the opinion that the site is self-contained, identified for residential development and its development would not affect the wider allocation, with the principle of development, therefore, being fully acceptable supported by policies LP3, LP7 and LP9. She feels that nearby approvals to the south further demonstrate that residential development in this location is suitable and well established.

Ms Penney stated that design, layout and scale will be considered at Reserved Matters stage to ensure fully compliance with policies LP12 and LP16, protecting visual amenity and the character of the area, with the submitted drawings showing how this can easily the proposal can accommodated within the site. She expressed the view that this is a suitable, well located and sustainable residential development with access matters entirely resolved at the next stage and there are no objections from technical consultees, asking the committee to support the outline application.

Members asked questions of Ms Penney as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if the site would be connected to main sewage? Ms Penney responded that her understanding is that it would be, but this is still up for debate.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that drains run along here, and she can see that the Drainage Board has been contacted but there has been no response, which is normal because they are not a statutory consultee. She would expect, if this is approved, that the agent speaks to Drainage Board about the Reserved Matters.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if the farmhouse is still in the ownership of this owner as she thought it had been sold off and is the farmhouse going to be retained? Ms Penney responded that the farmhouse is going to be retained, it is still in a reasonable state and did not seem worth demolishing. She confirmed that it is all within the applicant’s ownership.

·       Councillor Purser asked if the farmhouse is still lived in as it looked derelict? Ms Penney responded that she thinks it is empty, but it is still a dwelling house.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that Cherryholt Farm is a Listed Building and sits on the Buildings at Risk Register, with the house not having been lived in for over 40 years and believes it was sold a few years ago. She asked why the Conservation Officer and enforcement have not looked at this dwelling? David Rowen responded that he feels there is confusion over what Cherryholt Farm is being referred to and thinks the one that Councillor Mrs French is referring to might be the property that is on Burrowmoor Road, which is a separate property to this application and which he believes was sold off a number of years ago.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she is surprised by the comments of Highways because normally they want the access at outline but at Paragraph 5.5 they are saying it can be undertaken afterwards. She added that apart from this she has no objection to the application believing it will enhance the area and supports it.

·       Councillor Purser agreed with the comments of Councillor Mrs French, it will enhance the area and the houses are very much needed.

·       David Rowen stated that in terms of redevelopment of the site for residential there is no real issue with that in principle, but the issue is that the application has failed to demonstrate that at a more detailed stage the site can be accessed in an acceptable matter, with the access running close to the front of Cherryholt Farm and there could be potential issues for the amenity of that property going forward. He continued that the Highway Authority have said that they do not have details that an adequate scheme can come forward with an acceptable access, which is the principle of redeveloping the remainder of the site.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that Highways has not objected, their comments are woolly and she thinks the access can be achieved.

·       David Rowen stated that the Highway Authority have not specifically objected but have raised concerns about the details that have been provided and the concern is if outline planning permission is permitted the access can only go in one place with the constraint of the farmhouse being in situ and if the Highway Authority object at Reserved Matters stage it would be very difficult to then refuse the application if they do raise concerns. Matthew Leigh added that planning is clear that a condition cannot be imposed if officers are uncomfortable that it can be met and Highways have raised concerns, the Council is the decision maker based on the details that are provided and the fact that Highways might not agree with it in the future is a moot point. He feels there is not enough information in front of committee that a condition can be imposed and committee only needs to look at the plans to see how the road narrows a lot as it comes off Lewis Close, it would not be difficult for an appellant to have found some extra information in relation to tracking, etc, to confirm that it works and the fact that there is no information has to be a concern for the Council as a decision maker and the ability to impose a condition when there is obvious concerns is something that committee needs to be conscious of.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she has never seen such a comment from Highways before. Councillor Connor agreed and it is the first time he has seen them sit on the fence.

·       The Legal Officer reminded members that if they are going against the officer’s recommendation they need to be clear what the reasons are.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Purser and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with conditions delegated to officers to apply in consultation with Councillors Connor and Mrs French.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning policy as they feel that the Highway Authority has not objected to the application, is it believed the access can be achieved and the proposal complies with all other planning policies.

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