Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which 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 Mr Adam Jackson, the agent. Mr Jackson explained that his client is a property holding investment company and they own the land depicted within the red line and the additional land which surrounds the site and is edged in blue on the location plan. He added that within the blue land there is an existing building which contains 10 existing commercial units which his client currently lets and he has advised him that they are fully let and there is a successful history of letting in that area.

Mr Jackson stated that the proposal includes seven new commercial units and six of them are situated in a terrace along the west of the site and one at the entrance to the site on the eastern boundary which is planned to operate as a café. He explained that the café would serve the development and the local commercial estate and the other six units at the rear of the site were planned as a Planning Class Use E which will provide the range of permitted uses within the use class.

Mr Jackson stated that having owned and rented the ten units adjacent to the application site for many years along with holding further properties within the area, the applicant has an accurate knowledge of local market forces and has consequently and confidently invested in the planning application and if approved the units will be constructed quickly and then rented out, with, in his view, the café being a worthwhile addition to the area. He made reference to the Planning Officer’s comments and expressed the opinion that the primary reason for the recommendation of refusal is due to the planning use class that has been chosen for the new buildings and the amount of floor space for this use together with the lack of supporting documentation including the sequential test to prove that the new development will not prejudice or cause any harm to the town centre.

Mr Jackson stated that Council’s adopted Local Plan refers to an out-of-date National Planning Use Class Order which was revised three years ago, with the Council’s emerging Local Plan correctly recognising and including the new class order and he explained that it is the new class order and the emerging Local Plan which has been chosen to nominate the use for the proposed buildings. He made the point that the Council’s emerging Local Plan at LP40 allocates the site within a land allocation zone of 40.01, with development proposals that fall into this area and form being for use classes B and E and there is no specific subdivision of the Class E Use and, in his opinion, the application should be considered appropriate with sufficient weight being given to the emerging Local Plan.

Mr Jackson stated that he would like to explain to members the detail concerning the deliverability of the scheme and made the point that as his client is a larger commercial developer it has the resources to start work almost immediately should the application be approved and it is believed that the scheme would be worth about £2,000,000 to the immediate local economy which includes, steelworkers, fabricators, roofers, cladding suppliers, electricians, building control, tarmac providers and surfacing providers. He expressed the view that within 12 months, if the scheme is built, it is likely to generate in the region of 40 new jobs which will be a large stimulus to the local economy especially when consideration is given to the longest recession the country is currently facing.

Mr Jackson stated that he is aware that there is no sequential test which has been submitted with the application but the approach that he has taken was to provide an argument and a case towards the emerging Local Plan. He made the point that should the application be refused then a new application will be submitted which will contain a sequential test, but he asked the committee to consider the deliverability of the project presented to them in its current form.

Members asked Mr Jackson the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that when she first reviewed the application, she was delighted to see the proposal as the area is in great need of small industrial units, however, she is disappointed to see that the application has been submitted as incomplete. She added there is no sequential test included and Class E is being used when most of the units in Hostmoor Avenue and Thorby Avenue are Class B.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that he agrees that the application is incomplete, and asked Mr Jackson to explain how he is able to estimate that 40 jobs will be available if he is unaware of what industries, commercial operations or retail units are intending to utilise one of the units. Mr Jackson stated that the 40 jobs is anecdotal information provided by the applicant as they have a long history of renting and they have already received expressions of interest for the new facility, one of whom is a local Kung Fu club who would like to move there as they can find no other suitable premises in the area. He added that he has also carried out an anecdotal search on Rightmove earlier today and over the past few months to find similar use classes within the town centre and there is a very limited supply of other commercial uses. Mr Jackson explained that his client is of the opinion that a sequential test will be absolutely positive and will be supported and, therefore, would like to avoid the whole bureaucratic resubmission exercise which will delay the project for another year.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis asked Mr Jackson to explain why he did not submit a complete application in the first place if he has acknowledged that the application is incomplete and has stated that, if necessary, another application will be brought back with a sequential test. Councillor Mrs Davis asked Mr Jackson if he understands what an emerging Local Plan is as it is still in the consultation stage and, therefore, the committee cannot consider it when determining applications. Mr Jackson stated that the sequential test was not attached to the application because they had decided to allocate a proportion of weight to the emerging Local Plan and that was the position that they were in when the application was submitted. He added that it was his understanding that there would be a negotiation process and, in his view, there is a strong case to be made for this and that is the reason why. Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the view that she believes that Mr Jackson does not understand the full procedure.

·       Councillor Connor stated that Fenland is short of B1 industrial units, and he would like to see some brought forward and he asked Mr Jackson to explain how confident he is that the units will be small businesses which are similar to the units that his client already owns. Mr Jackson stated that during the course of the negotiations, he employed a planning consultant to liaise with the Planning Officer and proposed a reduction in this open Class E Use by reallocating some of the units to a use class that is not a town centre use but this was found to be unacceptable by the Planning Officer, but he did not understand why. He advised the committee that earlier today he had submitted a revised set of drawings to the Planning Officer via email which reduces the amount of open Class E to under the 500 sqm threshold which is the tip in the balance for the requirement of the sequential test. Mr Jackson added that with regards to how confident he is that the provision of business units can be achieved is that it is the testimony of the applicant that they constantly receive requests for all sorts of planning use classes in this particular area which is the whole reason that this proposal has come forward. He explained that his applicant has also had an enquiry from one of the existing B1 units who has enquired about relocating into the new building.

·       Councillor Connor addressed Mr Jackson and asked him to clarify that he has submitted revised plans to the Council today and Mr Jackson confirmed that is correct. Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that he fails to understand why the submission of the plans was not undertaken sooner in order to give officers time to review them.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that the application is incomplete, and the agent has pointed out that he has based the application on the emerging Local Plan and, therefore, the committee cannot consider the application when the current Local Plan is in use. She added that whilst she is pleased that somebody wishes to build industrial units in that location, it should not be for a location for cafes. Councillor Mrs French asked officers whether the application should be looked at in conjunction with the emerging Local Plan or should the application be disregarded in its entirety. Nick Harding stated that no weight can be given to the emerging Local Plan at this time.

·       Councillor Cornwell questioned whether he is correct in his understanding that the issue with the application is the use and the use itself could affect the car parking issue which was evident on the site visits as the existing car park was full and parking proved to be an issue. He asked officers to clarify whether it is the two issues of the classification of use and the parking which the committee are considering. David Rowen confirmed that is correct.

·       Councillor Murphy stated that on the site visit, in his view, the units at the site are class B1. He asked officers to clarify that with regards to the Class E Use, is it a way of building out of town and remove everything from the town centre and if the application was approved then could any type of premises operate from there? David Rowen referred to the officer report and his presentation and explained that Class E covers a multitude of uses including retail which would be classified as town centre uses and, therefore, the situation may arise where there could be a café and six B1 units or a café and six retail units. Councillor Murphy made the point that if the application is passed then that could be the end result which he does not want to see and if it is refused then the applicant has got to submit a different proposal. David Rowen stated that it is the committee’s decision whether or not they wish to refuse the application as the agent has indicated if the application is refused then a further application will be submitted which will either have greater clarification on the actual uses proposes and/or it will be accompanied by the relevant assessment work to enable any impacts to be more adequately addressed than the current application does.

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

·       Councillor Cornwell expressed the opinion that it is up to the applicant if they choose to come back with a further proposal and he stated that as it stands based on the information which has been provided to the committee the officer’s recommendation is correct.

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that on her first review of the application she was delighted to see the proposal as that type of unit is very much needed, however, as the application is so unclear as to what or may not be there, she has serious concerns. She stated that the Town Centre is currently being regenerated and as many shops are leaving the High Street should the application be approved in such an incomplete format then further retailers could also be lost. Councillor Mrs French stated that at the current time she cannot support the proposal without it undertaking a sequential test and being a complete application.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor expressed the view that if the agent has submitted further plans this morning then this application should have been withdrawn from the agenda.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he is Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth, and he was delighted to see the application for the industrial units as they are very much needed, but he agreed that the usage of them is very vague and should be far clearer than it is, and he does not think that he can support the proposal. He made the point that he does not think that should the application be approved that it would affect the demise or bring about the demise of March High Street. Councillor Benney expressed the view that there will not be the larger well know high street brands relocating to that area or restaurants as it is a commercial area and is more akin to units such as double-glazing businesses and small manufacturing units which is exactly what is needed and required. He added that they will pay higher business rates than retail businesses would be able to due to the fact that in the current economic climate retail is struggling. Councillor Benney stated that the application is incomplete and, in his opinion, had the paperwork been completed properly it is likely that the application would have been approved. He expressed the view that it is disappointing as he would have liked to see the units built as they are very much required, and they are in the middle of an industrial area so would be cited in an appropriate location. Councillor Benney added that to hear the agent state that there are revised plans which have only been submitted today means, in his view, the application should not be being discussed. He stated he would like to support the proposal, but the application is incomplete, and it is a shame that the application has been submitted in such a way that it cannot be supported

·       Councillor Sutton expressed the view that he has mixed feelings on the proposal and whilst he believes that members would like to see the commercial units developed, had the proposal been for Class EG, the application would not have been before committee as it would have been passed. He made the point that whilst he would like to see the application approved, he does not think it can be as it would be setting a dangerous precedent. He added that he does want to criticise the agent for assuming that he could take the emerging Local Plan into consideration when submitting the proposal. Councillor Sutton stated that in order to expedite the application he would suggest that it should be deferred for further negotiation with the officers and for the agent to take a clear steer that Class EG will only be accepted and then it would not need to come back to committee as it could be dealt with under officer delegation rather than start a whole new application process.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked for clarity as to whether the proposal could be deferred as it is her understanding that members need to determine an application based on the information presented to them and contained within the officer’s report. Nick Harding clarified that Councillor Mrs French is correct in the fact that members should be a making a decision based on the information before them and deferrals should only be used in order to get clarification on an issue where further detail is required, rather than to re-engineer an application which would have to go through another public consultation exercise for it to be brought back to committee.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor expressed the opinion that she does not think that the application should be deferred, and a decision should be made on it. She added that it is her understanding that Planning Officer’s had last week tried to contact the agent to try and resolve some issues so that it was ready to come before committee and it looks as though that was unsuccessful and, therefore, in her view, members should accept what the officers have said and the agent will have to come back with a different application.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she does not think that the application should be deferred, and that consideration should be given to what is contained in the officer’s report and the fact that the proposal has been recommended for refusal by officers on two issues.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he agrees with Councillor Sutton that the application could be deferred which would mean that the application could be approved far quicker. He added  that the actual buildings will not change and it just their usage and if that is defined it would also address the car parking issue too. Councillor Benney made the point that there would not be the need to go back out to public consultation as the size will not change and it is just a paper exercise which is required to ascertain the usage of the proposal which is needed and, therefore, it will bring the delivery of the units forward far quicker.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he does not disagree entirely with the points raised by Councillor Benney, but the advice which has been provided by officers is that members need to consider what has been provided to them today and, in his view, the committee should not deviate from that.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that if it was just one recommended reason for refusal then consideration could be given to defer the proposal but there are two reasons listed which are the classification and the car parking and there does appear to be issues with both. He expressed the view that rather than a deferral and in case there has to be a revision of layout and content then the application does need to be determined today.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that regardless of the comments made by members earlier, nothing has changed, and the application is still incomplete and if the committee decide to defer it then there is a message being sent to other agents that they can submit applications without including a sequential test and their applications will be deferred. She expressed the view that the application needs to be refused and officers have made the correct recommendation.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that there are two things to consider, and the parking issue only becomes an issue if the use Class E is used for retail but if the units are used for use Class E/G then the parking issue falls away in his opinion. He stated that he never suggested that the application was incomplete although other members did, and he added that it is not unprecedented to defer something like this in order to improve it and there are no reasons, in his view, what this could not be done with this application. Councillor Sutton asked the Legal Officer to clarify whether the committee could defer the application on the reasons given or would that not be an option.

·       Stephen Turnbull, the Legal Officer, stated that this a situation where the legal position is broader than the planning policy position. He made the point that there is no doubt that legally the committee are entitled to defer the application should they wish to do so, however, it is whether the committee take the view on planning issues it is a sensible to thing to do.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that had the advice from the Legal Officer been that it would not be legal to defer the proposal then he would consider that view, however, in his opinion, he still believes that with the proposal it would be the best way forward for the application to be deferred.

·       Councillor Skoulding stated that he cannot agree to approve the application as there are two factors to be considered and he will support the officer’s recommendation.

·       Councillor Sutton made the point that the parking issue will not be a consideration if there are no retail units involved.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he agrees with Councillor Sutton and added that if you define the use the parking issue is resolved and then you have a solution. He added that a deferment today would bring forward the delivery of the units far quicker than a refusal would. He added that the units are much needed, and he would like to se a solution reached to get the units delivered.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that the proposal before the committee does go into an area which is currently used by the users of the units to the north as a car park and, therefore, there has to be a decrease in the existing parking area that the committee have already seen which is really heavily used. He added that if you are going to build in it it will reduce the area for parking already there for those northern units. Councillor Cornwell added that although the officer report centres on the possible change of car park quantity use, dependent on the classification of those units, it does have a wider implication on the units already in existence and is, therefore, a bigger issue than just related to that classification.

·       Councillor Murphy stated that the application is incomplete, and members must make a decision on what is front of them.

·       Councillor Benney questioned whether the parking is allocated parking because if the other units have their allocated parking and this was not allocated as parking then it is irrelevant whether the land is used as car parking. He added that it may just be a piece of waste ground that people have chosen to park on and in that case they have parked illegally. Councillor Benney stated that if that is the case then the parking issue is no longer a reason for concern due to the fact that the allocated parking that would have been in place with each of the industrial units that are already on the site would have had allocated parking. He made the point that his assumption is that the proposal is looking to be built on waste ground and not a car park and, therefore, it is an irrelevant argument.

·       Councillor Sutton made reference to comments made by David Rowen on the site inspection where he had advised members that had the application been for Class Use EG it would not have been brought before the committee. Councillor Sutton added that he assumes that the parking issue would not be a concern had the proposal been for class use EG.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he called the application into committee, and is extremely disappointed to hear that the agent has submitted revised plans on the day of committee, which in his view is unacceptable. He stated that Nick Harding has advised him that the application can come back before the committee in 13 weeks if everything is in order.

·       David Rowen stated that if the application was solely for EG uses given the nature of Thorby Avenue and its identification in the Local Plan, it is highly likely that the application would have been a delegated granted permission several months ago and he referred to comments made by the agent with regards to the fact that there may have already been units built on the site. David Rowen explained that it is not what the application is for, and there may have been an oversimplification in the counter argument by some members who have stated that if the proposal was for all EG class use then it would have been acceptable. He referred to a point made by the agent who had indicated that if the application was to be clarified there would still be a mix of E uses within in and it would not be solely 7 units for class EG and David Rowen explained that there would have to be an assessment of the balance and the mix of those uses which may still lead to the need of a sequential test dependent on what the balance of the units was.

·       David Rowen stated that with regards to members consideration of deferring the application it is quite possible that the applicant would still need to several weeks or months of actual work before any future submission could be looked at and, therefore, members need also to consider that as part of any clarification to the description of the application there would be the need for a further consultation exercise because it forms part of the process and so that occupiers in the vicinity know exactly what the proposal is for. He explained that by deferring the application it would not mean that the application could be approved imminently as there are a number of further steps which need to be overcome and from the comments made by the agent it would appear that the applicant does not appear to want to be restricted to just doing units that will fall within Class EG in any respect.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Mayor, seconded by Councillor Cornwell and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillors Sutton and Benney asked for it to be noted that they only voted against the proposal as in their view they thought that a deferral for the application would be more appropriate)

(Councillors Connor, Mrs French, Skoulding 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 matters)