Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

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 Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey stated that this site is part grassland, part approved overflow car park and, therefore, as officers have said part brownfield and feels it is well related to the town of March as looking at the 2014 Local Plan it can be seen that it is next to the built form so it clearly shows it is abutting the urban area and, in his view, Policy LP12d is met. He expressed the opinion that the application will comply with the interpretation of Policy LP16d as it will make a distinct demarcation between development and the open countryside, with the existing landscaping still acting as a boundary between the two.

Mr Humphrey made the point that the application sits next to and opposite a new dwelling so, in his view, these three new dwellings will fit into place. He stated that it was proposed to remove the conifers and replace them with native species but the client is happy to take a condition to ensure the conifers are left should officers and committee so wish. Mr Humphrey requested that the site be deemed acceptable and asked for members support.

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

·       Councillor Skoulding stated that he cannot see any problem with the proposal, apart from the sequential test, as there are houses opposite it and he would have thought this would be the boundary of the town.

·       Councillor Mrs French agreed with Councillor Skoulding as other development has been allowed in this area and it is a brownfield site so she is not sure why it has not passed the sequential test.

·       Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that if you know March it is an elsewhere location, it is not part of the town there are a few businesses here but most of the businesses are in this location as it is the best place for them and as far as he is concerned it is an elsewhere location.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Mayor, seconded by Councillor Cornwell to refuse the application which was not supported by a majority at the vote.

Nick Harding reminded members in regard to reasons if going against the officer’s recommendation that one of the key ones has to be how has the sequential test been passed. He stated he has had a skim read of the applicant’s submission and it appears that the search has been restricted to sites that have been available for sale which falls short of what the requirement is in the Council’s Flood Water SPD, but he might be wrong and if he is then he would provide an apology. Nick Harding subsequently did provide an apology to Mr Humphrey as sites have been included and been discounted and officers have disagreed with those sites that are being discounted.

Councillor Mrs French proposed that the application be approved against officer’s recommendation as she feels that it does comply with policy LP16d as it does make a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness and character of the area, it enhances the local setting and responds to and improves the character of the local built environment, it does comply with LP12d as it is not considered to be an elsewhere location and is part of March and in relation to the sequential test it is felt this is the right site for this development and sites in March are hard to find that are suitable for this type of development.

The Legal Officer stated that the position is that the Code of Conduct on Planning requires a proposer to provide reasons for going against a recommendation and although some reasons have been heard from Councillor Mrs French he is of the view, as is Nick Harding, that those reasons are very flimsy but ultimately it is a matter for the committee to take the view whether it is happy to proceed with those reasons with the clear risk that if that decision is challenged that the permission may be overturned, which will involve costs against the Council.

Councillor Meekins asked if the application could be withdrawn for the applicant to provide a sequential test. Councillor Connor stated that there is a sequential test but it has failed.

Councillor Sutton requested that Councillor Mrs French withdraws her proposal as she cannot come up with appropriate reasons because there is not one that would stand the test of lawfulness. Councillor Mrs French stated that she was not prepared to withdraw her proposal.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Benney that the application be approved against officer’s recommendation but this was not supported by a majority at the vote.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Cornwell to refuse the application, which was not supported by a majority with the use of the Chairman’s casting vote.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be APPROVED against officer’s recommendation with the use of the Chairman’s casting vote, with authority delegated to officers to formulate conditions.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that it does comply with policy LP16d as it does make a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness and character of the area, it enhances the local setting and responds to and improves the character of the local built environment, it does comply with LP12d as it is not considered to be an elsewhere location and is part of March and in relation to the sequential test it is felt this is the right site for this development and sites in March are hard to find that are suitable for this type of development.

(Councillors Connor, Mrs French, Purser and Skoulding registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are members of March Town Council but take no part in planning)

(Councillors Mrs Davis and Marks registered, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on this application)