Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report which had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey stated that this is a resubmission and enables them to hopefully overcome or clarify reasons for the previous refusal, namely flood risk. He compared this site to the Council’s own application at Parson Drove, which is very similar and where the application was in Flood Zone 3 with sites that were available but were discounted and this proposal is in Flood Zone 3 and whilst sites are available they are not similar enough and he is sure everyone wants their applications to be determined in a similar manner to the Council.

Mr Humphrey expressed the view that they are offering renewable energy solutions as the Council did in order to make this application more acceptable. He referred to Policy LP16d, which states that the Local Plan requires that development makes a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness and character of the area and he believes this application will enhance Gaul Road as it goes down from the bypass and will add interest and help raise the profile of March

Mr Humphrey made the point that the proposal is on the site of a former dwelling and he has included historic plans to show that there was a dwelling here because the last time it was considered by committee members could not remember or did not realise that a dwelling was on the site which has been demolished. He feels it is unfortunate that this plot is the only area which is undeveloped in the Gaul Road area as developed by Cannon Kirk adding numerous new houses but would hate to see that this site is fenced in with Harris fencing and left until someone else tries to get a new house in the area.

Mr Humphrey expressed the opinion that it is edge of town, in a sustainable location and he believes that the Flood Zone 3 application is similar to one that the Council have had approved in Parson Drove.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Cornwell made the point that in 1.2 it states that the site appears randomly placed but questioned this as it is going to be surrounded by the continuation of the current approved development in Gaul Road. Other members indicated that the development he is referring to is finished. Councillor Cornwell queried how the approval on this development in Flood Zone 3 differs from this particular site and questioned that there is no more development taking place in Gaul Road. Nikki Carter responded that there has been a recently approved application on the opposite side of the road for 55 dwellings within Flood Zone 1. Councillor Cornwell stated then the site is not actually isolated as such. Nikki Carter responded that it is not asserted that this site is isolated just that it is separated from the edge of the existing built form of the estate development on the northern side.

·       Councillor Meekins asked the question what is the difference between isolated and separated? Nikki Carter responded that there is not a specific definition in planning but isolated would generally be described as a property in the open countryside that is separated from any kind of built form and in this particular case there is a 40 metre separation, so it is not isolated from the settlement, but it is out on its own in terms of character.

·       Councillor Purser referred to the similar project in Parson Drove and made the point that each application is taken on its own merits. Nick Harding responded that the case cited by Mr Humphrey is materially different, this was already developed land being a garage parking court that has been redeveloped and within the settlement of Parson Drove.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed surprise that 55 dwellings were approved by delegated powers but feels that one house is not a separation of March, yes there is a small gap but she cannot see any reason why this cannot be approved.

·       Councillor Cornwell made the point that further down Gaul Road are two other houses that are already there, which may be construed as isolated so he cannot see where this site is isolated especially when 55 dwellings have been approved on the opposite side of the road.

·       Nick Harding reminded members that if they are minded to approve this application, the previous refusal reasons need to be considered and why this scheme overcomes these reasons.

Proposed by Councillor Cornwell, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be APPROVED against officer’s recommendation. 

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that applications have been approved for a number of dwellings in the vicinity and whilst there is a gap in the built form this proposal is not in isolation, one dwelling will not harm the surrounding area and flooding issues can be overcome with mitigation.

(Councillors Connor, Mrs French 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)