Agenda item

To determine the application.

The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04)) during its deliberations.

Sheila Black presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report that had been circulated to them.

Members received a presentation in objection to the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Councillor Mrs Jan French (March Town Councillor).

Councillor Mrs French thanked members for the opportunity to speak at today’s Planning Committee meeting. She raised concern with the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission and highlighted that the consultation with statutory consultees was carried out in April/May 2018 and is therefore outdated. She stated that Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) Highways should have been re-consulted. 

Councillor Mrs French informed members that the March Transport Strategy Study (MTSS) is underway and currently out for public consultation. The document highlights congestion at the Burrowmoor Road and High Street, March junction which would be further impacted by this development. She added that March Town Council had recommended refusal as well as the Council’s own Transport team.

Councillor Mrs French explained that the scheme is not compliant with policy and highlighted that National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Paragraph 1- 17 promotes the effective use of land which this scheme fails to do as the application is only an outline application and therefore only indicative. She reiterated that due to the application only being for outline planning permission, the compliance with policy cannot be assessed effectively.

Councillor Mrs French informed members that March is currently subject to several studies including the MTSS, Growing Fenland Project and the High Street Study and if successful, will bring in the region of £14 million of government funding into the town. A development such as this is premature and therefore its effect on these studies must be considered.

She asked members to refuse the application based on the following factors; over-development, traffic concerns, detriment to the surrounding area and not in keeping with the current site and surrounding locality. She highlighted the effects of overlooking on the residents of Ravenhill Drive and stated that as no tree surveys have been carried out, it is unknown the effect the development will have on the wildlife and habitat onsite.

Councillor Mrs French asked members to refuse this application as only a full application for planning permission would highlight the full impact of this development on the town. She reminded members that the site is opposite a Council owned car-park in City Road, March and stated that this should not be expected to accommodate residents parking.

She drew members attention to the architect’s drawings submitted with the application and highlighted the use of a roof garden in one of the proposed blocks and argued that this was out of keeping with other blocks of flats located in the town.

Councillor Mrs French reiterated that the application fails to address the impact of additional traffic and offers no means of mitigation against this. She added that the outline application does not provide assurance in relation to the impact on neighbouring properties and asked members to refuse planning permission because of this.

Members had no questions for Councillor Mrs French.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Ted Brand (Agent).

Ted Brand clarified the highways concerns in relation to the application and explained to members that whilst the Council’s Transport team had initially raised concerns about traffic implications, Highways had carried out a full assessment and confirmed that the traffic implications of the proposal would not be sufficient enough to warrant a refusal of planning permission.

He explained that he had worked closely with the Planning officers for many months and had reduced the amount of dwellings on site during this period. Whilst the indicative layout does show the existing property on the site being demolished, he explained that there may be an option to retain this property for use as a nursing home or another community provision. He encouraged members to grant planning permission and welcomed any questions from them.

Members asked Ted Brand the following questions;

1.    Councillor Hay said whilst she has no issue with the principal of development on the site, the scale of the development is an issue. As the application is only for outline planning permission, the site plan submitted is only indicative. She raised concern with the effect of the development on the character of the area and the visual impact this would cause and stated that she may view the application differently if the agent had made clear the possibility of utilising the existing dwelling at an earlier point in the planning process. She proposed members defer the application today and ask that further plans are submitted to allow members full consideration of the scale and layout of development. Ted Brand explained that the applicants are a local charity and they have a duty to obtain the best value for this land. He reiterated that the application is for the maximum amount of dwellings suitable for the site following consultation with Planning officers. He added that a developer may choose to alter the scheme at a later stage and confirmed that he believes the scale of the site and parking provisions proposed can be delivered in a satisfactory way.

2.    Councillor Hay asked Ted Brand why he believes there will be no issue with the overlooking of properties in Ravenhill Drive considering the proposed block will be three-storeys in height. Ted Brand confirmed that whilst the proposed building is three-storeys in height, the third-storey will utilise the attic space and therefore have the appearance of a two-storey building thus minimising overlooking.

3.    Councillor Meekins agreed that he has concerns with the scale of development and the proposed parking provisions too. He asked Ted Brand if consideration would be given to reducing the number of dwellings. Ted Brand explained that this could be considered at the reserved matters stage. Regarding the parking provisions, the site is located within March town centre and therefore many residents may not require a vehicle on site. He highlighted that national planning policy would possibly support no parking on site due to the town centre location.

4.    Councillor Benney asked for clarification on the number of storeys proposed as one of the drawings submitted shows a 3.5-storey building. Ted Brand confirmed that this was an error and the dormer windows were included incorrectly.

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

1.    Councillor Sutton asked if officers had a response to the issues raised in the presentations. David Rowen said in relation to the highways concern the comments from the Council’s Transport team were received in September/October 2019. These comments were discussed with Highways and their decision has been made with full knowledge of these comments.

2.    Nick Harding explained that a meeting had been held between himself, Highways and the Council’s Transport team. Following this, Highways had subsequently provided figures for expected traffic generated from this site. He highlighted that a report carried out in 2011, had identified that the junction at Burrowmoor Road was under capacity and the additional traffic generated by the site is not expected to have a significant detrimental impact on this. He reminded members that the MTSS is in its infancy and feasibility has not yet been considered therefore members should not refuse this application based on future improvements to this junction, as nothing has been yet approved or adopted.

3.    Councillor Sutton highlighted that if members grant planning permission today the development will be taken into account as part of the MTSS anyway.

4.    Councillor Murphy made the following statement;

‘It worries me greatly that we are going to sit here today with this indicative outline planning application showing what it might look like but we know that if we approve this the designs can be changed beyond all recognition and we also know that the developer contributions to such things as affordable housing, education, libraries and public open space provisions can diminish or disappear altogether.

Now, I would like to discuss the Highways situation. Concern has been raised by members of the public and the Council’s own Transport team regarding the traffic generated by the proposal and the potential impact on the junctions. At the mini-roundabout there are three roads directly converging, two from the main through road in High Street, which already has queued traffic trying to get in and out of the town centre and the third road, Burrowmoor Road, coming from the busy school and March bypass. Then we have the narrow City Road which already serves the car park, the busy leisure centre, the library and West End Park. This is also an un-adopted road. Unfortunately this road does not directly join straight onto the mini-roundabout; traffic has to stop at Burrowmoor Road which is further exacerbated by the traffic lights in close proximity to the junction. If traffic wants to turn right onto Burrowmoor Road, this can cause a standstill as it has to negotiate not only the normal flow of traffic but the traffic lights themselves.

Now, what is interesting is that Highways have said only ten two-way trips will be generated by the development in morning peak hours and only seventeen trips generated in the evening peak hours. Please remember these figures.

The proposal is for 45 flats and dwellings, some flats will no doubt be one-bedroom but even so, could accommodate two people. This being so, potential there could be 90 persons living on site with a car each totally 90 potential vehicles. As with other roads, you see many residents have work vans, some have caravans and other types of vehicles going in and out all day. Then they have relations and friends come and visit all times of day. Then most people as we know shop online, so delivery vans will deliver all times of day. In light of this, I do not believe the Highways authority have considered this.

Finally in the NPPF, NPPF 24 states that ‘Local Planning authorities and County Councils (in two-tier areas) are under a duty to co-operate with each other, and other prescribed bodies, on strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries’.

NPPF 109 states ‘development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highways safety or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. I believe this will happen on both accounts. So, following discussion by members, I will be recommending refusal of this application due to the following reasons; NPPF 109, overdevelopment and the dramatic change of the landscape of the area.’

5.    Councillor Hay agreed that the application proposes overdevelopment of the site and whilst she realises that the plans are purely indicative, 45 proposed dwellings would be inappropriate and out of character for the area. She added that whilst she appreciates the Highways assessment of vehicle trips, residents of March know that junction is busy and therefore she recommends that members refuse planning permission.

6.    Councillor Benney agreed and drew members attention to the many letters of objection received. He urged members to listen to local residents and consider their comments. He added that he disagreed with the figures provided by Highways and said March Town Council are also against the proposal. As Portfolio Holder for economic growth in the district, he raised concern that the development could deter residents from visiting the town centre which in turn could have a detrimental impact on March High Street.

7.    Councillor Sutton disagreed and argued that all buildings have a visual impact. He urged members not to refuse the application based on highways grounds as the Highways authority has recommended the scheme for approval. He said as a regular user of this road, it is nowhere near as congested as other local routes and whilst he appreciates resident’s concerns, members should only refuse planning permission on planning grounds.

8.    Councillor Sutton highlighted that the March Broad Concept Plan proposes development only a short distance away from this scheme and no concerns were raised about the roundabout when these applications were submitted.

9.    Nick Harding drew member’s attention to other local schemes which have had planning permission granted that are also located within a close proximity to the roundabout and the junction in question. He explained that the Council’s comments in relation to the access road have been purely made from a landowner perspective as the road is un-adopted. He confirmed that the road width is sufficient for development.

10.Councillor Murphy reiterated NPPF 109 and argued that whilst planning permission has been granted to nearby sites, the ‘cumulative impact’ would be affected by further development.

Councillor Hay proposed that the application be refused due to the scale of the development and detrimental impact on the area.

Councillor Murphy proposed an amendment to Councillor Hay’s proposal and added that the application should be refused as it contravenes NPPF 109.

Stephen Turnbull offered members legal advice and reminded members that the Highways authority had recommended the application for approval.

Proposed by Councillor Hay, seconded by Councillor Lynn and decided that the application be REFUSED due to overdevelopment; against officer’s recommendation

(Councillor Marks abstained from voting).