Agenda item

To inform Members that a petition has been received with the requisite number of signatures to be considered by Full Council in relation to the relocation of the fountain on Broad Street, March as a part of the March Future High Streets Fund project.

Councillor Booth presented the petition on behalf of the people that had signed it regarding the proposal to move the fountain in March, with the petition reading

“As part of the March regeneration project Fenland District Council have approved the moving of The Fountain. The intended location is in front of Malletts, without any consultation with the proprietors or their near neighbours. It is unacceptable to place The Fountain in front of a retail unit with a shop window for display and this petition is to ask for your support with the appeal to have it at another location.”

Councillor Booth stated that the petition has been signed by thousands of people, 3087, and when it was first sent to the Council it was approximately 3,200 and it could have been a lot more with further time as people were still signing it in their hundreds per week. He made the point that there is a substantial number of people who have signed the petition from the area including March, the surrounding villages and even people outside the District and these are the very people that use the facilities of March and keep March going at the moment and these are the people that members should want to keep using the facilities in March, with those members also needing the town to grow.

Councillor Booth stated that the people that signed the petition believe the proposed move of the fountain outside of Malletts Jewellers is unacceptable. He further added that it is important to note this in the context of the High Street regeneration project because that is about growing what there is in March and keeping it a vibrant place.

Councillor Booth referred to the report mentioning the consultation that took place, however, it is known from feedback received and from comments in the Council Chamber that the consultation process was not robust, 102 consultation comments compared to over 3,000 petition signatories, which shows the disparity between what people’s thoughts are and the strength of feeling against what is being proposed.  He stated that a number of councillors have also received correspondence about this issue which suggest an alternate or better location, which would be moving it to the open space near the riverbank and bridge, with the District Council having recently brought the old Barclays site and is yet to determine what is going to happen here so there is a possibility that moving it there might be a better location but that is yet to be determined and an open mind needs to be kept about it but there are possibilities that is within the remit of the District Council that can help shape something that is going to improve the situation and the environment of March High Street.

Councillor Booth stated that as a councillor it is the duty and for the majority the motivation to improve the District for its residents and to make sure the Council delivers the best it can for the people of the District. He referred to the recommendation of the report where Council can either note the petition or it can refer it to Cabinet, which he feels is the option that should be taken because it can be looked at again and see what the options are, take it forward and it will show that the Council actually listens to people.

Councillor Booth referred to the comments of Councillor Boden on the last item about the risk of reputational damage and he thinks that if Council does not listen to what people have said and a better alternate location is not found then there is going to be worse reputational damage and the Council could be seen as almost being arrogant and not listening to the people for what they want to see happen in the market town of March. 

Members made comments as follows:

·       Councillor Seaton thanked the Leader as he had voiced a lot of what he is was going to say in his earlier response on the previous item but he feels it is important to give an update as to where the March Future High Street project is. He stated that work on Broad Street has begun, with the successful installation of new gas and water utilities by Cadent and Anglian Water and Octavius Infrastructure are now on site delivering the first phase of the wider Broad Street scheme and have already removed much of the southbound carriageway, street furniture and kerbs. Councillor Seaton stated that as part of phase one and for the new road layout to be implemented, the historic fountain must be relocated and having reviewed several design options during the design phase relocation was the only option that achieves all the committed outputs to both the MATS and the future High Street fund and is affordable and deliverable within the timeframe. He made the point that planning for the proposed new location was approved by Planning Committee in February 2023 and was supported by Historic England, with the scheme for March only working with the implementation of a mini roundabout which replaces the existing lights at the northern end of Broad Street and it is not physically possible to create a mini roundabout at the northern end of Broad Street without the relocation of the fountain as there is not enough road space to allow for a mini roundabout properly. Councillor Seaton advised that the fountain is programmed for removal in the next few weeks following initial ecological delays caused by nesting birds which have now been overcome. He referred to the petition received and an alternative location for the fountain, with there being several implications which Cabinet will need to be aware of before consideration of an alternative location, firstly relocating the fountain to an alternative site will lead to delays in overall programme delivery, the need for reassessment, redesign and potential modifications to a new location can significantly extend project time and these delays can also be built in to the project via the contractor for their time on site while this work is ongoing. Councillor Seaton advised the second implication is that any change to existing design will incur varying level of cost depending on level of change allocated, there will be at risk cost of work to redesign elements of the scheme before any planning approvals can be sought, there is currently no budget allocation remaining for this level of intervention and funds would need to be identified either from outside of the project budget or through potential scope reduction of the wider public realm scheme. He made the point that the existing location has all planning approvals in place but a change to the design will require the planning process to be reopened, risk exists and the revised plans may not align with the existing permissions granted or that an alternative site is not granted approval and there is also a risk associated with Historic England granting permission to an alternative site. Councillor Seaton proposed that this issue be referred to the September Cabinet for further consideration.

·       Councillor Tierney stated that for people watching this and members of the public who are present they perhaps do not understand why so many councillors had to leave and he worries that they might take the wrong idea from this, each member has their own reason for leaving but the most common reason will be that it conflicts with their seat on the Planning Committee and there is legal reasons why they had to leave the room so as not to be pre-determined. He feels there is nothing worse when the Council has made a decision and afterwards it becomes clear that a large number of the public feel that it is the wrong decision, with a Council being ‘pig-headed’ about it and sticking to it and saying it is not changing the decision which has been seen elsewhere in the County, which is a dangerous position to take, the Council has always got to be listening and learning and if the wrong decision has been taken it should be revised. Councillor Tierney stated that he does not know whether this is the right or wrong decision but he does support having another think about it at Cabinet.

·       Councillor Taylor advised that a few comments that he has received about a new location near Barclay Banks is that a lot of the military personnel are concerned about it being next door to the War Memorial, having two items so close together of historical interest and both being in use at the same time.

·       Councillor Hay expressed the view that with so many people signing a petition it is only right that it should be referred back to Cabinet and Cabinet can look at the cost implications and the reasons why so many people object to it being outside Malletts as she does not understand why it is being objected to in this location but until you actually look at those reasons a valued decision cannot be made.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis clarified that she was on the Planning Committee at the time the decision was taken but she is no longer on the committee so she feels that she can speak freely and make an unbiased decision. She stated that at the Planning Committee meeting there was no real material consideration that could be taken to not go the route the Planning Committee did if they were following the Local Plan and other policies and advice. Councillor Mrs Davis stated that having seen the size of the petition and realising the number of people that are against the proposal this is a second chance to go away and look at things differently but it is not known what other information can now come forward so she agrees that it should be referred to Cabinet.

·       Councillor Woollard stated that as a newly elected member of the Council he has been thrown into this issue in March, he is a March man himself and there is a tremendous amount of feeling within March regarding the moving of the fountain, it is known that it must be moved but there is this opportunity now to reconsider the proposals, see if there is a viable cost-effective alternative and he fully supports it being referred to Cabinet.

·       Councillor Nawaz stated that he sees the petition has attracted 3,587 valid signatures but asked why the public were not consulted and is this the normal modus operandi that the system sees fit to impose on the residents.

·       Councillor Boden welcomed the tone of the debate and particularly liked the comment made by Councillor Tierney in that he is correct that it is very easy if you are in control of decisions to be ‘pig-headed’ and say that is the decision that has been made, which is not a positive in business. He referred to Councillor Nawaz’s question and stated there was a significant amount of consultation and at the time there were comments made that people were unsatisfied with the nature of the consultation being undertaken, more than 100 comments were made which is quite exceptional for a consultation, but the Council now needs, in his opinion, to step back, listen very carefully to the advice of officers, to look at what alternatives realistically exist and hopefully be open-minded in looking at alternatives, which may result in a small, slightly larger or a much larger change. Councillor Boden stated that he will remain open-minded about these possibilities and will wait for the reports to come out and look at it in a fair and unbiased way as he has no scheme in keeping things as they are currently proposed, there is no advantage to saying that it is not going to change but there is every opportunity for the Council to look at alternatives, looking at them with an honest approach but this is not to say that they will end up recommending a change until the information is seen that will be provided by officers.

·       Councillor Booth stated that he supports a lot of the comments that have been made, particularly about attitudes to change the project and notes the risks that have also been highlighted by Councillor Seaton, but he would ask that there is a can do attitude when looking at this issue to see what the Council can do and not be stuck in processes that are going to hinder what needs to be undertaken. He expressed the opinion that the relocation is not on the critical path of things that need to happen, the fountain is going to be in storage for at least 12 months so he does not think this is a critical thing and there is time but it must not be allowed to fumble along and nothing gets done so engagement needs to be made with Historic England as soon as possible to try and get them on side. Councillor Booth urged members to support the proposal to refer the issue back to Cabinet so they can look at it and get a better reputation for this District Council and improve people’s opinions as the views in March and the wider area of the Council are not good presently.

·       Councillor Seaton stated that Councillor Booth is right that this will not be kept on the back burner, it is this intention that this will move forward to the next Cabinet in September and between now and then there is a lot of work that needs to be done by officers to determine the risks and outline the costs so members can make a correct decision but also listening to what has been said both by the petition and by councillors today. He said that Cabinet will have an open mind and intend to give the issue its proper and due consideration.

Proposed by Councillor Seaton, seconded by Councillor Boden and agreed that the petition be referred to Cabinet for consideration.

(Councillors Benney, S Clark, Connor, Hicks, Imafidon, Marks, Murphy, Purser and Rackley declared an interest by virtue of being members and substitute members of the Planning Committee, and retired from the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Miss French declared an interest by virtue of being a member of the March High Street Regeneration Committee, and retired from the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Mrs French declared an interest by virtue of being a member of the Planning Committee and Chairman of the March Area Transport Study, and retired from the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Mrs Laws declared an interest by virtue of being Portfolio Holder with responsibility for Planning, and retired from the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Mrs Mayor declared an interest by virtue of being a member of Planning Committee at the time the Fountain application was considered, and retired from the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Booth and Meekins registered that they had been lobbied on this item)