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 19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

 

Officers presented the application and informed members that updates had been received as per the documents circulated.

 

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure from Councillor Mrs French.

 

Councillor Mrs French made the following comments;

 

The application goes against March Town Council’s Neighbourhood Plan and Fenland District Council’s (FDC) Local Plan. The original Draft Local Plan in 2014 highlighted that March North had an allocation of 450 dwellings to be built over time. Due to strong planning reasons put forward by residents, it was decided that it was not sustainable to build on that scale in the area at that time.

 

In March 2014, FDC stated ’that the removal of the North East March allocation of 450 homes is both sound from a sustainable, prospective and from democratic choice perspective’. This site was the only site in the district that generated significant local opposition; to reintroduce into the local plan of March North site would be contrary to sustainability, appraisal evidence and contrary to the principles of localism.

 

The NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) states windfall sites which have not been specifically identified in the local plan process, normally comprise of previously developed land which have come unexpectedly available.

 

The proposal would also result in a loss of agricultural land. The NPPF states that where an application conflicts with the local Neighbourhood Plan it should not normally be granted. She questioned why Officers are recommending approval when it goes against March Neighbourhood Plan which was only approved by the Council in November 2017.

 

The NPPF states that where practical, particularly with large scale developments, key facilities such as a primary school and local shops should be located within walking distance. This is an application for 95 dwellings with future applications for 300 more; she questioned why this application has not been subject to a Broad Concept Plan when other developments have.

 

County Council are carrying out a full transport study for March and until that study is complete no new developments should be approved in that area.

 

The development offers no benefit to the local community and there is a lack of affordable housing, with just 6 units being offered where there should be 24.

The rail crossing barriers are down for about 28 minutes in every hour and that is likely to increase due to more goods trains passing through.

 

Middle Level Commissioners strongly object to the application.

 

More schools are already required and County Council have been in discussion for over 2 years about opening a new school which is needed.

 

Councillor Mrs French stated that there are many flaws in this application and it should not be approved.

 

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation from Mr Graham Moore (Middle Level Commissioners), who was speaking on behalf of Middle Level Commissioners and March Fifth Internal Drainage Board and Mrs Liz Whitehouse, who were both speaking in objection to the Application.

 

Graham Moore stated that in addition to its own functions, Middle Level Commissioners provide planning consultancy services to various Internal Drainage Boards.

 

He stated that March Fifth Internal Drainage Board and Middle Level Commissioners are not Statutory Consultees on Planning Applications and Internal Drainage Boards (IDB’s) are independent public bodies funded by the rate payer, responsible for water level and flood risk management in local areas and work in partnership with other authorities to manage and reduce the risk of flooding.

 

It is the IDB not the Environment Agency, FDC, CCC or Anglian Water, which has to receive and transfer the flows that emit from the site.

 

The IDB does not believe that the downstream water level and proposed flood risk management system can receive the flow concerned and or that for the lifetime of the development the site, the IDB is not currently prepared to accept any increase to the rate of flow into the system, and will not agree to any discharge until the necessary requirements are met.

 

During the planning process the applicant has amended the previous proposals for surface water disposal and the scheme is now for a balancing pond facility which is a better solution, however there has been no consideration regarding the upkeep and management arrangements going forward.

 

Liz Whitehouse stated that there have been 267 objections to this application and sustainability should be at the heart of all local planning. She mentioned that this had been raised by a public planning inspector in 2014, when the FDC Local Plan was formulated.

 

The block plan shows in excess of 200 homes and questioned why FDC has allowed this application for only 95 homes. The Neighbourhood Plan adopted in 2017, only allocates land in the south east, west and south west. Liz Whitehouse quoted from section 10.1 of the Officer’s report section 10.1 ‘The delivery of housing on this site would form a logical extension of existing development to the south-west of March in a sustainable location’ and commented that this is misleading as Estover lies to the north of March and not the south west.

 

The Neighbourhood Plan states that developments should not create flooding problems either on or off site. Estover Road runs to the south east of the site and the risk assessment states that any flow will tend to flow towards the lower land in the south east of the site and the solution that has been recommended leaves an unacceptable risk for local residents.

 

The third transport assessment still contains errors and shows that there are 6 trains that stop between 10am and 4pm. The first report from 2015 shows 6 trains an hour making 24 trains and she questioned how Cambridgeshire County Council and Fenland District Council agree to the transport assessment which is incorrect. There have been 2 bus shelters proposed in Station Road, when the nearest functioning bus stops are in Estover Road.

 

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure from Rosanna Metcalfe the applicant’s agent.

 

Rosanna Metcalfe explained that the matter is being determined today for outline planning permission for up to 95 homes.

 

The proposal is for much needed new homes in a sustainable settlement which has seen little development. March has been identified as a primary market town in the Fenland Local plan which highlights 3 strategic growth locations in March; however, the developments have not yet commenced and are not likely to do so for a period of time.

 

March has seen very little growth in recent times and is a long way from meeting its housing target of 4200 new homes. The matter for determination today proposes to provide new homes and will help to contribute towards the local economy. The site is considered to be a suitable location and it is located within walking and cycling distance to the train station and other community facilities.

 

The transport assessment has looked at what effect the development could have on the railway crossing and Cambridgeshire County Council have agreed that the proposal will not have a material impact on queuing and this is detailed in the Officers report.  She stated that Cambridgeshire Highways have not objected to the proposal and support the application.

 

The site is located in flood zone 1 and the applicant has provided information to evidence that surface water from the development can be managed and there have been no objections from the Lead Local Flood Authority and Environment Agency who are statutory consultees. The Middle Level Commissioners are not statutory consultees; however the queries that have been raised by them have been looked at by the applicant but as this is an outline planning application and it would not be reasonable to supply the information requested currently and the details relating to the design of the scheme and details regarding the drainage scheme details are unknown. The condition that the LLFA have requested will put an appropriate safeguard in place to ensure a suitable strategy is established prior to the commencement of construction.

 

The application is policy compliant and the principal of the development has always been considered as acceptable. Detailed discussions have been held with CCC and FDC Officers concerning the viability of the scheme, a detailed viability assessment using the assessment models requested by both authorities has been used and is in accordance with policy LP5.

 

She stated that the comments concerning the sites removal from the Local Plan 2014 are recognised, however the site is not removed due to technical reasons and also not due to the request of the local planning Inspector.

 

She concluded that the site is not found as unsound and was not found to be unsuitable or unsustainable in the Local Plans sustainability appraisal. The benefits of the application are the provision of 95 dwellings which will be deliverable between 1 and 5 years and will be in a sustainable settlement and location. There is a contribution of £800,000 towards education, contributions towards other community services and upgrades to existing bus stops and rail contributions. The application is in line with the Fenland Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan.

 

Members asked Rosanna Metcalfe the following questions.

 

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked for clarification that the application complies with the March Neighbourhood Plan. Rosanna Metcalfe confirmed that it does and stated there is no policy in the Neighbourhood Plan that restricts the site.

 

At this point in the meeting Councillor Court left the Council Chamber.

 

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

 

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked for clarification as a speaker had mentioned that there are three other sites that have been considered and approved but to date the developments have not commenced and that is why the proposal before the Committee today is the preferred site. Officers clarified that the speaker was probably referring to the Broad Concept Plan (BCP) sites in South West March, West March and East March. As members will be aware that the allocations have yet to come forward with either BCP’s or planning applications.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked whether the applications will come forward. Officers stated that at the present, there are no BCP’s or planning applications in place.

·         Councillor Bligh stated that there are many Members of the public present today who object to the proposal which shows how strongly local people feel about it. Whilst she appreciates that the application is compliant, there are Councillors present in the public gallery who are familiar with their locality who also disagree with the proposal.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that although it would appear that the site is compliant, we have also heard how the site has drainage issues from the representative from the Drainage Board. Whilst she understands what Officers have stated, and although the proposal fits all of the requirements, it doesn’t sit well with the local residents.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that a great deal of time and trouble has been taken with regard to the production of the Neighbourhood Plan, and in her opinion that document is the voice of the local community and it should be considered alongside the Local Plan. With regard to the emphasis placed on delivering development and the work undertaken by landowners, architects and developers if there are other Broad Concept plans that are in place, members must be mindful of that.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that it is a windfall site but the drainage issue is an area of concern. With regard to viability, the site does not deliver what it should and although the Section 106 Officer has looked into this. The development is therefore less sustainable than it should be.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he believes the development is sustainable. It is in flood zone 1 and the Lead Local Flood Authority who is a Statutory Consultee has no objection to the proposal. The issues concerning the discharge raised by Middle Level Commissioners and the IDB can be reviewed at a later stage and do not need to be considered today. Planning Committee Members have to make decisions on material planning reasons. The proposal does not go against the Neighbourhood Plan; if it did then Officers would not be recommending it for approval.

·         Councillor Sutton stated he can see no material planning reason to refuse the application.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that the neighbouring site has just been approved for a sports development and there were no objections raised concerning the associated traffic that may arise as a result.

·         Councillor Mrs Hay stated that she is very concerned about this application. Members are here to represent the residents of Fenland and the residents’ concerns and level of objection must be considered. Although not statutory consultees, the views and issues raised by the IDB need to be considered as they have taken the time to present to the Committee to raise their concerns.

·         Councillor Mrs Newell stated that in her opinion, members must take notice of the IDB. The March water recycling centre does not have the capacity to treat the flows from the site.

·         Nick Harding, stated that in terms of the March Neighbourhood Plan under Policy H1, it states that it supports those major site that are identified in Fenland District Council’s plan and in terms of those allocations they are South East March, West March, South West March and March trading Estate.It then goes on to say that the Neighbourhood Plan does not advocate anymore major development sites on the outskirts of March. Therefore his understanding of that is in the context of the capacity of those developments as aforementioned, South East March 600 dwellings, West March 2000 dwellings, South West March 500 dwellings and for the March Trading Estate it does not give a figure. The plan then continues by stating that it will consider windfall developments and the scheme before members today is for 95 dwellings and this is substantially lower than those major site allocations previously mentioned.

·         Nick Harding stated that in terms of the surface water issues which have been raised. The IDB have recognised that the LLFA is the authority that we should be going to in consideration of these matters and if the NPPF is referred to it does state that major development should incorporate sustainable drainage systems and should take account of the advice of the LLFA. The advice from the LLFA is that this development proposal with conditions is acceptable.

·         Nick Harding stated that he is very supportive of the IDB’s they have a separate legal process which has to be complied with by persons who wish to discharge their surface water and just because planning permission is granted for a development it does not mean they are automatically going to get consent from the IDB’s. The Developer still has to apply to the IDB and the detail of the scheme has to be agreed.

·         Nick Harding stated that with regard to maintenance contained within the NPPF the guidelines state that there must be an arrangement in place to ensure there is an acceptable standard of operation for the lifetime of the development. The Government has been looking at how to deal with surface water flooding for many years. It looked like they were going to ensure that all surface water drainage schemes were adopted by a responsible authority, however this has not happened and the Government are no longer forcing developers to have their schemes adopted by a responsible authority. We cannot realistically insist on adoption of this system by the District Council, Anglian Water or the IDB’s and therefore if an alternative option is tabled which is satisfactory there would be no reasonable prospect of being successful in defending a refusal of planning permission.

·         Nick Harding stated that with regard to Anglian Water, they have raised no objection to this application. They have indicated that they will make necessary improvements to their network to ensure they can deal with the water and therefore as we do not have an objection from Anglian Water, and members should consider on what basis would we be able to defend a reason for refusal based on foul water capacity.

·         Councillor Mrs Newell stated that on Page 32 of the report, Middle Level IDB have expressed concern over water levels and flood risks.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked for further information with regard to the transport strategy. Nick Harding stated that the application has been subject to the necessary transport assessment which has been submitted with the proposal. That has been vetted by CCC highways authority, they are satisfied with the scheme, it is safe and the necessary sustainable travel arrangements are in place. There may be a wider transportation study review for the March area but all of the junctions which could be impacted by the potential development have been investigated and assessed as part of the planning application process.

·         Councillor Mrs Bligh commented that whilst she appreciates that the NPPF have been referred to, members must be mindful that this is Fenland and the area is reliant on drains and dykes.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that a comment was made earlier with regard to the Planning Inspector who had acknowledged that unallocated land in March North would be brought forward in any event in order for Fenland District Council to meet its planning target.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that she has concerns over this application, especially as there are three other sites coming forward and she would like to refuse this application under the grounds of LP16, with regard to item D where it states does it make a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness, the neighbourhood plan needs to be considered.

·         Nick Harding asked for clarification from Members that their concern is in relation to the fact that the location for this site does not fit well with the build form for the settlement.

 

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Laws, seconded by Councillor Mrs Davis and decided that the application be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the following reason.

 

The application proposes a form and scale of development which would not respond to the core shape and characteristics of the existing settlement, and which, if permitted, would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area and would, therefore, fail to make a positive contribution to local distinctiveness and character or enhance its local setting. This would be contrary to Policy LP16 (d) of the Fenland Local Plan (2014)

 

·         Councillor Sutton requested that his vote against the proposal to refuse the application be noted.

 

(Councillor Court registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a Member of March Town Council but takes no part in Planning Matters. Councillor Court also registered that with regard to this planning application he would like it noted that he has previously been lobbied on this application and he was also a Member of March Town Council Planning Committee who acted as Consultees to Fenland District Council when the application was first submitted in 2015). 

 

(Councillor Court requested the permission of the Chairman of the Planning Committee to remain in the Council Chamber to hear the the presentations given by the speakers and will then leave the Council Chamber whilst the application is debated by Members).