Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members and drew 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)) during its deliberations.

 

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr. Peter Bimson, an objector. Mr Bimson stated that he is a resident of Princess Avenue, owning a property that borders St Thomas’ cut and he has previously written a letter of objection, which prompted a response from the applicant, which are both available to members. He expressed his gratitude to the applicant for their response as it did allay a number of his fears that were raised in his initial objection.

 

Mr Bimson expressed the opinion that in principle he has no great objection to a development of a site thereof but as a neighbour he would obviously prefer there was not one and the reason he is here today is to draw members attention to matters relating to the proposed drainage strategy, which he feels warrants some more detailed scrutiny. He advised that he has no expertise in these matters and is reliant on information gathered through the LLFA and also supplied by the applicant.

 

Mr Bimson referred to a photograph on the presentation screen, with the point marked one being the location of St Thomas’ cut which is an excavated drainage ditch that holds water and controls its discharge northwards and downstream off the site and number two is the existing watercourse which is fed by St Thomas’ cut and ultimately this is the main route of discharge away from the proposed development as well as the existing site. He expressed the view that St Thomas’ cut stores water and controls the discharge away from the site and is bordered to the east by 5 properties and to the west is bordered by the existing landowner of the proposed development site, with the LLFA initially raising objection to the proposed development in part due to issues of riparian ownership and responsibilities of the maintenance of this cut as they pointed out that where maintenance is shared then the ability of the waterway to function as intended is dependent upon every party undertaking their responsibilities.

 

Mr Bimson showed views of the cut when it was first excavated in 2002 following the completion of the existing development and showed an image of the Land Registry search identifying a narrow strip of land representing the west bank of that drainage ditch and it is an unregistered piece of land, although it is his understanding that it is the property of the existing landowner. He showed a view of the cut today, which has become overgrown, and of particular note is the west bank of the watercourse has a number of very mature trees that have grown, which are now taller than the houses that are next to it and this would be under riparian responsibility of the existing landowner, with the residents such as himself having responsibilities on the east side and have taken various degrees of measures on maintaining part of the ditch.

 

Mr Bimson stated that his objection to the current proposed drainage strategy is in part a result of the applicant’s response to his previous letter of objection where they stated that “the watercourse is not mapped to forward in the current landowner’s title proposed development site in this location and as such they have no obligation to maintain flows through the watercourse or to maintain it”. He stated that having consulted with the LLFA his understanding is that the proposed development will border the west of St Thomas’ cut and, therefore, the current landowner shares riparian ownership and responsibilities to maintain that side of the waterway and since the existing development has been completed the current landowners has not undertaken any maintenance of their riparian obligations and, in his view, a development of this scale is going to be demanding of the current drainage features and the future maintenance regime of St Thomas’ cut he believes is going to be very important.

 

Mr Bimson asked that if members decide to grant the application that due consideration is given to imposing the strict conditions that has been proposed by the LLFA in the letter of 27 March. He displayed another photo showing the north where it all feeds into and it does not appear to be under any significant maintenance and people are placing objects into the ditch in order to use it as a thoroughfare, which he believes borders a public park and he is unclear whose responsibility of the maintenance of this ditch is but thinks it is March Town Council but he would ask that all these features are going to be dependent upon this and committee considers rejecting the application unless it is satisfied these issues have been fully considered and should committee be minded to grant the application then the strict conditions be imposed to mitigate risks.

 

Members asked questions of Mr Bimson as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked why Mr Bimson thinks the St Thomas cut drain belongs to March Town Council as she has no recollection being on the Town Council for many years. Mr Bimson responded that it was suggested by a representative of the LLFA as the area borders a public park. Councillor Mrs French stated that it may belong to Fenland District Council but not March Town Council.

·       Councillor Cornwell added the area shown in the slide he believes is at the bottom of The Avenue recreation ground and that is the responsibility of Fenland District Council so it does not look like Fenland District Council has been undertaking its riparian responsibilities.

·       Councillor Sutton made the point that riparian maintenance and responsibilities is a grey area where residents do not know they are responsible for and asked when Mr Bimson recognized that it was partly his responsibility for the maintenance? Mr Bimson responded that he was one of those residents who was unaware of the riparian ownership until this application came up, he knew the residents had a moral responsibility to maintain the ditch because that is clearly the function it has and they have taken responsibilities to do this as the east bank has been maintained by all of the residents to varying levels of degree but he readily accepts that he had no understanding of riparian ownership prior to this application which it is why, in his view, it has become important when assessing this application as it would appear the existing landowner has not maintained their riparian responsibilities either.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor referred to Mr Bimson saying he was not aware until submission of this application but asked that when he purchased his property did his solicitor not explain this to him as she has been in a similar situation and was made aware at the time of her house purchase. Mr Bimson responded that he is not disputing that he has responsibilities but he was not advised or made aware at any time during the purchase of his property. He stated that he purchased the house new and has revisited the paperwork and deeds that he has and there is no mention of riparian ownership and he feels they were deterred from maintaining the ditch because the developer placed a 6 foot fence on the boundary and to gain access to the other side you had to go into the adjacent field which is someone else’s property so he has lowered the fence and put in a gate so he can access it.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Simon Atha, the agent. Mr Atha thanked officers for their engagement and dialogue during the application process and for the well-reasoned and justified committee report. He expressed the view that they have sought to positively engage with and respond to comments received throughout the application process and have taken on board advice from the case officer and worked closely with consultees to overcome any issues that have been raised.

 

Mr Atha expressed the opinion that Richborough Estates are one of the country’s most successful strategic land promoters who specialize in delivering residential developments alongside house builders and development partners and seek to take a proactive engagement with local councils, communities and stakeholders to create sustainable developments that respond positively to each local area. He stated that this outline application is seeking permission for the principle of development for up to 125 dwellings with means of access from Princess Avenue and matters of detail such as layout, appearance, scale and landscaping are reserved for future consideration.

 

Mr Atha stated that the application seeks to provide for 20% of the dwellings to be affordable, which equates to 25 in total and this would be split between 70% affordable rent and 30% shared ownership tenures following agreement with the Council’s Affordable Housing Officer. He made the point that the site has been allocated as part of the west of March strategic allocation in the adopted Local Plan and in addition the west of March Broad Concept Plan (BCP) was approved by this committee in July 2021 and seeks to accommodate 2,000 new homes in addition to new schools, green infrastructure and a local centre.

 

Mr Atha referred to Paragraph 9.1 of the report and that their proposals are fully in accordance with the adopted BCP with access being served off Princess Avenue and officers have identified at Paragraph 9.2 of the report the benefits of the proposal, the provision of housing on an allocated site which has been tested against the NPPF and is considered to be sustainable. He expressed the opinion that this proposal would make a strong contribution towards the Council’s future five year housing land supply, particularly through the provision of much needed affordable housing.

 

Mr Atha stated that they are proposing to deliver a package of Section 106 contributions as part of the application that is reflective of the Council’s own viability assessment towards education, libraries, off-site formal open space and the provision of health care facilities. He referred to highway improvements and advised they have agreed in principle with the County Highways Transport Team to deliver in full as part of the development an upgrade to the High Street and St Peters Road junction to relieve existing problems with traffic congestion and they consider this to be a significant benefit to the proposals.

 

Mr Atha expressed the view that on site the development would deliver a pedestrian and cycle link to the wider strategic allocation and its proposed services and facilities and there would be an extensive amount of on-site open space proposed with a play area and landscaping that would deliver a biodiversity net gain in excess of 10%. He stated that they have prepared detailed technical surface water drainage proposals that provide for a significant amount of sustainable urban drainage features across the site that would manage all of the surface water flows from the new development.

 

Mr Atha expressed the opinion that they have carefully noted and responded to concerns raised by local residents on Princess Avenue and in regard to the existing drainage ditch along the eastern boundary of the site he believes the drainage proposals would lead to a managed and considerably lower discharge rate into the cut than the existing run-off that can freely flow from the field into the cut at times of peak rainfall at present. He stated that they intend to work with existing local residents to secure their agreement as the riparian landowners to clear and maintain this ditch to ensure it is free from blockages and provides effective drainage to the existing housing and the proposed development and made the point that the LLFA have raised no objection to the proposals and are fully happy with the surface water drainage strategy.

 

Mr Atha reemphasized for clarity that members are only being asked to assess the principle of residential development at this stage with means of access from Princess Avenue and matters such as the appearance, scale and landscaping are to be considered at a future reserved matters stage. He made the point that the case officer and statutory consultees are satisfied that the illustrative layout submitted will meet the requirements of national and local planning policy in creating a high quality and sustainable development.

 

Members asked questions of Mr Atha as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed surprise about reference to High Street and St Peters Road junction as that is part of the MATS and she has sat on this committee since 2017, with this corner already being agreed and the business case is on-going so she is not sure how the applicant is getting involved. Mr Atha responded that they are agreeing to deliver that upgrade scheme in full as part of their development rather than paying the County Council through a Section106 Agreement so they would deliver that junction upgrade directly prior to the occupation of 26 dwellings on this site, which would be rather than local taxpayers and County Council funding it which he feels is a real benefit as it would assist existing problems that are known to be here. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that she does not think Mr Atha is correct as St Peters Road and the High Street is what is called medium-term, it is going to a business case now and this development will not be completed until whatever year and that corner needs urgent attention within the very near future so she cannot carry any weight to this. Mr Atha stated this is an outline application and if this were to be approved there is no reason why a reserved matters application could not come forward on the site within the next 8-12 months and then once the pre-commencement conditions are discharged a developer could be on site delivering the site within the next 2 years so those junction upgrade works could take place as a result of this development within a 2-3 year period, which he believes is going to be considerably sooner than what is envisaged over the medium-term within the MATS work that has been undertaken.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to 125 dwellings which would equate to 300-500 people and only £5,944 is being offered to the National Health when it asked for £75,126.86 and she thinks this is shocking. Mr Atha responded that it is noted the contribution that has been requested from the NHS and they have been working closely with Council officers over the obligations that have been sought and the Council has adopted a viability position statement in respect of what is deemed to be an acceptable viable amount of obligations that development in this area can deliver and it is the Council who have said it is £2,000 per dwelling, which they are happy to deliver and are more than happy to continue talking to officers through the Section 106 process to look at the viability further.

·       Councillor Sutton expressed the view that he is struggling to understand why Councillor Mrs French has got a problem with Section 106 money being spent on any road because time and time again members are complaining about not getting infrastructure benefits from developments and residents are always saying the area is not getting a fair share and he would welcome this improvement. He referred to Mr Atha’s presentation where he said they were willing to clear and maintain the cut and he spent about 3 hours researching this application as flooding is a big issue around March and the wider area and he did notice and Mr Bimson alluded to it that the company initially refused to take ownership of the strip of land because they do not own it and would not maintain it. He stated that he would struggle to support this application if this is the case because clearly over a number of years this cut has been neglected and it remains to be seen whether the scheme put forward will actually reduce the amount of water in it and is capable of taking more. Councillor Sutton asked if the applicant would take ownership of the land, register it in their name and he would like assurance that the applicant would go down this route and make sure it is cleaned out in total at their cost and make sure this included in the management plan. He asked about the 3.5-metre maintenance strip on the other ditches as it is crucial these ditches are maintained to prevent flooding. Mr Atha responded that the road junction improvements that are being proposed to the High Street and St Peters Road they are proposing to deliver those works in full as part of this development as they recognize it will provide benefits to existing residents as well as proposed residents of this scheme. He referred to the cut and flooding issues and they have rightly recognized Mr Bimson and his neighbours concerns and are more than happy to get in touch with those residents and offer as part of the development to clear out and maintain the cut to a point where it is clear and the residents are happy. He made the point that they do not own it so it can only be undertaken with the resident’s permission but would imagine that if a developer is going to come forward and offer to do that work for them at no cost to them they would be happy for it to be undertaken as it relieves them of their obligation. Mr Atha asked for a plan to be displayed showing the surface water drainage strategy to show what they are proposing in terms of SUD features, which shows how far SUDs have come on in the last 20 years, the run-off rates will be better than existing situation which will be controlled by a hydro break into the cut and the LLAF are satisfied with these proposals.

·       Councillor Sutton asked for more assurance about what they are going to do about the piece of land that as yet has not been registered and he was asking for it to be registered to the applicant, which gives them an obligation to upkeep the maintenance. Mr Atha responded he will definitely look at the land ownership and title matter and if they can register that land and take it into their ownership and put it forward as part of the management company then there will be a riparian obligation on the management company to maintain it. He stated he cannot promise this today categorically but they will do their best to acquire this piece of land but if they cannot acquire the land they will definitely talk to the residents about undertaking maintenance as they recognize there is an issue here and want to deal with it positively.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis asked that as this is an outline application can members have a guarantee that when it comes to reserved matters that those 25 affordable properties will still be there? Mr Atha responded that they have been through very carefully with officers to discuss and agree what the affordable need is in this area and the feedback received is there is very much a need for rented properties as there is a waiting list in March so they have increased the rented offer to 70% of those affordable properties. He stated that what Richborough do as a land promoter when the eventual house builder comes forward they work carefully with them through the sale of the land to make sure the obligations that are being put forward in the Section 106 commit the eventual developer to delivering, it is part of their reputation and credibility to deliver what has been promised. Mr Atha stated they are happy the scheme is viable in its current format at 20% affordable housing and he can see no reason why this should be lowered at a later date as it is based on the Council’s own viability assessment, but if it was it is the committee’s remit to not accept the application at that time.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated St Thomas cut is a medieval drain which links to the original settlement at the town end of March and took the water down towards the river and even now St Thomas’ cut leads into the river and he asked if Middle Level had been engaged with the calculation of the flow of water, there may be balancing systems in place but there will still be an increase of water that is coming off that field into the system and that will have two issues, it has to go through a very restricted drain under the cricket field which is a much smaller drain than the existing St Thomas’ cut and the amount of water going out into the river is likely to increase so is Middle Level Commission happy to take those extra flows. Mr Atha responded flows will decrease on the site going into the cut and the LLFA has agreed with the position, because the idea is following SUDs principles that it is attenuated and stored on site and then it soaks away slowly from the SUD basins that were shown on the plans into the ground slowly over time. He expressed the view that when there is a peak rainfall period, the 1 in 100 year event, the basins will fill and water will be released at 5 litres a second and discharge into the cut but the principle is that it is stored and the run-off reduced going into the cut in normal day to day usage. Mr Atha stated that they are aware that it is culverted under the sports ground where it goes into a 300mm pipe and then it goes into Anglian Water storm sewer at Boundary Close eventually ending up in the river. He stated that in terms of outfall and flows, the LLFA and the IDB are happy there will be less flows going through the system then there is at present so there will be betterment.

·       Councillor Cornwell referred to the water levels perculating down to the temporary stores and asked how far down is it going down as this is a clay island and eventually it will finish up on the lower levels and fall into drainage authority system. Mr Atha responded that inevitably yes as it is the amount of permeability of the ground and how high the water table is at that point and clearly in the Winter months the water table is higher and in Summer months it is lower so the idea is that it is stored so it releases slowly over time and the SUD schemes that have been put in place he believes are fantastic and do work in alleviating existing problems. Councillor Cornwell stated that he has his doubts on some of it and especially the relationship at lower levels off the island to the effect on the Internal Drainage Board but Fenland District Council pays roughly half of the annual drainage costs but acknowledged that he might be a little bit skeptical.

·       Councillor Connor asked that if this application is successful he would like a pre-commencement condition during the construction phase that a road sweeper and a wheel wash should be on site at all times as he has experienced problems on other sites with this issue. Mr Atha responded that he could assure members of this and condition 4 will require full details of a construction environment management plan to be submitted prior to the commencement of the development that will include wheel washing, road sweeping and the frequency of that regime, which is common practice for any reputable developer to make sure the highway is cleaned.

·       Councillor Meekins referred to Councillor Sutton mentioning that the land on one side of the cut is unregistered and that the applicant is going to clear the cut and then hand it back to whoever buys the houses as a riparian owner of the drain and asked if this was correct? Mr Atha responded that there is two ways that they could go about it, the first is they would try to agree a programme of clearance work with the residents so the cut is as it was when it was first cleared. He stated that alternatively, which is Councillor Sutton’s point, they would go away and try to register that piece of land so it would come under their ownership and there is then the riparian responsibility on half of the ditch as they still would not own all of it and they would have future maintenance obligations that would be put into a management company who would oversee all the land and drainage responsibilities with a programme of work through the Section 106 Agreement over frequency of mowing, the frequency of strimming and clearing back vegetation. Councillor Meekins questioned that the other side of the ditch would still be the responsibility of the residents? Mr Atha responded legally those residents own it and they are unable to take land owned by others but things have moved on now and best practice is you put it into a management company so all the residents collectively fund the ongoing maintenance and management of drainage features. Councillor Meekins asked if the existing owners could be part of this deal as it did not look a very wide drain to him to be cleaning half of it? Mr Atha responded that he does not believe they could come into the new arrangement because they still have legal obligations and they own part of this drain so they cannot right the wrongs of the past but only try to manage and alleviate the situation that is there and they cannot have something that does not work for the future residents either. Councillor Meekins queried how half of a drain can be cleaned out? Mr Atha responded that it is not necessarily about cleaning and dredging the drain it is about clearing the banks back, cleaning the vegetation out and the LLFA and IDB have also both got responsibilities in terms of enforcement capabilities to require landowners to do this but matters are being strayed into that are beyond planning.

·       Councillor Murphy stated that he hopes the roads will be cleaned properly, providing an example of where the Council’s road sweeper had been sent out to clean the road. Mr Atha responded that Richborough Estates are responsible house builders and developers who have a good track record of maintaining and delivering developments with as minimal impact as possible on existing local residents and there is the existing housing estate off Princess Avenue with residents who should be subject to minimal disruption whilst this development gets built out, which is why a condition exists and is enforceable.

·       Councillor Sutton asked if there was the possibility that when the management company is formed whether those residents that back onto the cut would be invited to be a part of this company. Mr Atha expressed the opinion that this is quite difficult to happen in practice but he does not know the full details of how the management company would be structured but it is something that could be looked into but it may not be something that existing residents would want.

 

Nick Harding referred to some of the questions and answers given by the agent as follows:

·       in terms of the Section 106 Agreement the agent gave a good summary of what the situation is and that the Section 106 ask from the various organizations is the size of a cake but the viability position of the development in the Fenland is only one third or a quarter of that cake, so that is all that can be realistically asked for to make the development viable and that is the way this has been operated for many years, although there has been a change slightly to the £2,000 pounds per property situation that exists today but that has come off the back of the latest viability advice that the Council got when it was preparing the first draft of the Local Plan.

·       in terms of the road improvement scheme that is included in the MATS proposal, Councillor Mrs French is right in that there potentially could be the situation whereby who is going to do the improvements first, this development company or the County Council/Combined Authority, so if the Combined Authority get to do this first then the Section 106 would have the ability for a contribution to be made that ordinarily the developer would have spent on delivering the MATS scheme to refund the County Council/Combined Authority who have forward funded that improvement that was to be provided by the developer.

·       in relation to the maintenance of the cut which was discussed greatly in the questioning, as has been explained the developer does not have any direct legal responsibilities for doing it and the fact they are going to try and do that out of goodwill is something that the Council cannot require as part of the planning consent. He advised that there is a group of owners out there who should be maintaining the ditch and they should not be potentially seen as holding new development to ransom because they are not fulfilling their legal responsibilities for maintenance.

·       officers did consult the IDB on the application proposal but did not receive a response but the agent stated they have had some background discussions with the IDB so there is no concern there from an objection in principle from the IDB and if IDB consent is required for a discharge then that is a separate legal process to planning.

·       from the planning permission perspective, the Council cannot require an applicant to go and acquire this additional slither of land that sits on the bank of the cut, it cannot require them to maintain land that is not theirs and it cannot require them to invite third parties to join forces in terms of maintenance because that is nothing to do with planning.

 

Members asked officers questions as follows:

·       Councillor Meekins asked who is responsible for policing the riparian owners in keeping these ditches clear because from the photos shown earlier people are not keeping the ditch clear. Nick Harding responded that it is the residents.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated in view of the photograph and the state of St Thomas’ cut that sits at the end of the Council’s own recreation field, he wonders if the Council should play its part in clearing this out and a request should be made to the relevant team.

 

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

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor stated she has had personal experience of riparian ownership and stated it is not easy and not a lot of people know about it and that is the problem, and unless it is explained to people properly they get away with it. She referred to a developer actually saying to her they were going to fill the ditch in and bring its boundary to her boundary to which she objected and what happened in the end is an engineer from a drainage board devised a scheme for the developer and they cleaned the ditch from their side as her side was clear, they arranged proper piping of that ditch, put inspection chambers in it and put a fence up down where the middle of the ditch.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she is delighted someone is prepared to put their hand in their pocket with regard to the highway junction improvement but the point she was trying to make is how long is it going to take as MATS is ready more or less and she is not prepared to wait 10 years. She made the point that this site has been allocated for several years and does not think the development can be argued, but the biggest issue is drainage and what she does not want to see happen is the situation in Birchwood Avenue, Butt Avenue and Brewin Avenue, which has taken about 15 years to sort out as a dyke was filled in by the developer and every time there is a flooding issue in 2014 and 2020 these particular three streets flooded repeatedly and fortunately she has been pushing this through County Council and last week County Council have started the work at a considerable amount of money. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that she does not want to see the same thing happening in the future on this site as it is a possibility it could, with the Cricket Club having a strategy document drawn up and the photographs they have are absolutely horrendous and some of the owners of the dyke were not aware of their responsibility. She advised the other area where there are great problems is Gaul Road, Ellingham Avenue and Sycamore, with this work having been agreed through the County Council to be undertaken, but she does not want to see in 15 years’ time that the people living in Princess Avenue and the new houses are going to be flooded the way March was badly flooded in 2020. Councillor Mrs French stated she could not support this application at this time and would like it to be deferred until this riparian dyke issue is resolved because it only takes one resident to hold things up then it does not happen.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to another question she asked to which she has not heard an answer to regarding why only £5,944 for the NHS as this application is going to create about 500 additional residents in the town, and queried where are the doctors, where are the dentists, when £75,000 was asked for and only £5,944 has been offered.

·       Councillor Purser agreed with the comments of Councillor Mrs French as his biggest concern is finding out who is responsible for the dyke because the dyke is there for a reason, and should not be filled in.

·       Councillor Mrs French added she was quite disappointed that the LLFA at County Council has not picked this one up earlier as the County Council has been working hard on this issue since 2020 when March suffered from the floods and March was supposed to be fully mapped where the dykes are. She stated that she will be following this up with Enforcement at the LLFA.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he is fairly satisfied with the answers he has been given and there has been good discussion around the water issue, which, in his view, is the only issue although he recognizes that residents are worried about extra traffic in Princess Avenue but he is not sure this will increase so that it is a major problem and the LLFA have agreed the drainage strategy, so he feels happy to go with officer’s recommendation.

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that it needs to be established who owns the riparian dyke, it is certainly not March Town Council, so Fenland District Council needs to be approached to see if they are responsible. She made the point that she has no objection to the principle of development but the flooding issues must be sorted now.

·       Councillor Purser expressed concern about the local amenities and other services in the town being overrun, although he recognizes this is not a material planning consideration.

·       Nick Harding stated in terms of the Section 106 situation there is only so much money available that the developer is able to contribute if the development goes ahead and that is a point of principle the Council has agreed and it has determined applications previously using the £2,000 per house rule on developments south of the A47 and zero pounds for all development North of the A47 so that is established and it is not the applicants choice as to how much money goes to the NHS, what officers have said is how much is being asked by whoever and then just giving them a pro-rata amount with the pot available as a Council members can decide where the money is best spent but the amount the developers have to pay is a finite amount and it is what it is. He stated, on the issue of the drainage, members have seen the updated report from the LLFA and as mentioned the Council cannot be held to ransom by the absence of maintenance by third parties downstream from this development and it needs to be borne in mind that the amount of water going into that system will be significantly less than it is now and this problem that lies in the hands of many cannot be solved through the planning system.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated he would like this plan to be deferred until the water and flood risk is sorted out as at the moment he is undecided.

·       Councillor Sutton stated if the plans go back to the LLFA then they would come back and say everything is okay as before and he feels this would be a waste of time.

·       Councillor Murphy stated it sounds like members are talking themselves out of this development and this will be stopping any future development in March.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated the concern is about flooding and she feels it needs to be deferred.

·       Councillor Sutton stated he was happy for all the money to go to the NHS but then there will be no money in the pot for potholes, education, etc.

·       Nick Harding stated if different members wish to put more money into the NHS then that is down to members, but an application could not be reasonably refused on the basis that the £250,000 is insufficient. He stated that the application cannot be deferred or even refused for the reason of trying to find out who owns land downstream from this development because it is irrelevant to the determination of the application.

 

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Murphy and agreed that the applicated be APPROVED as per officer’s recommendation.

 

(All members present declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on this application)