Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ben Tickner, an objector. Mr Tickner explained that he has been a resident of 117 Knights End Road for 30 years and he was addressing the committee on behalf of other residents from 106, 119, 123 and 125 Knights End Road. He made the point that one of the main reasons for the objection is the unsatisfactory access which is proposed to be via the current residential driveway, with a road that would completely loop around the existing dwelling to the new properties behind, with the new access being just 50 metres from the existing junction between Knights End Road and the March bypass which is exceptionally busy, situated on a blind bend and would be dangerous.

Mr Tickner explained that the traffic congestion is apparent and has increased significantly at the junction in recent years and he does not support having an additional turning to more residential dwellings so close to the existing junction. He expressed the view that the proposal should be considered in terms of the current road layout not how it might look in 10–20 years and added that he does not feel that the current proposed access is sufficiently wide enough to accommodate two lanes of traffic, a footway and space for rubbish bin collection.

Mr Tickner stated that he does not think that it is sensible to grant the proposal as there is not sufficient infrastructure in terms of pedestrian access or drainage, with the current drains only extending as far as no 110 Knights End Road, and the property at 110 has particularly suffered from flooding in recent years and the proposed soakaway drainage falls far short as surrounding fields are currently waterlogged. He stated that there has also been concern raised as the location does not have any pedestrian access and there is no footpath on the south side of Knights End Road and that on the opposite north side it finishes at number 110.

Mr Tickner made the point that another major objection is that the development will not be in keeping with the local area, with Knights End Road consists of street-facing frontage housing and the proposal would be back land development and out of character with the area, with the existing residential garden being surrounded on two sides by agricultural land. He expressed the opinion that the proposal is overbearing with too many properties in too small a space which would significantly overlook existing dwellings leading to loss of privacy, light and irreversibly damaging the countryside feel of the road.

Mr Tickner added that the proposal would also involve significant loss of ecologically valuable hedgerow vegetation and its removal would result in an increase in the amount of noise for existing residents as the vegetation currently shields the residents from increasing bypass dust and noise. He expressed the view that the proposed houses would be too close, one being just 50 metres from the bypass which would lead to unacceptable levels of noise and pollution for any future residents of these properties. 

Mr Tickner made the point that all five boundary properties to the site have objected to the proposal and the four adjacent properties to the site on the south side of Knights End Road have also all objected to the proposal. He explained that most of the residents are long term occupiers with over 600 cumulative years of living on the street and his own family have lived there since the 1850’s.

Mr Tickner stated that he is aware that there have been some letters of support to the proposal, although none from residents in the immediate vicinity and instead they come from distant addresses that will not be as affected by the increase in noise, traffic and loss of privacy. He added that some of the comments come from addresses which are not in March and not a single supporting comment has come from a resident of Knights End Road and, in his view, the strong opinion in objection of the most affected local residents should be given the most weight.

Mr Tickner made the point that the proposal is for outline planning with all matters reserved but the concerns reflect insurmountable challenges, which, in his view, should lead to its rejection. He stated that the site location is too close to the bypass which cannot be changed and, therefore, the site is fundamentally unsuitable for development, and he asked the committee to support the views and opinion of the residents and officers and refuse the application.

Members asked Mr Tickner the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks stated that the officer’s report states that 11 letters of support have been received for the scheme, with one of the reasons stating that there will be no loss of agricultural land and he asked for clarification as to what the land is currently used for? Mr Tickner explained that the land is currently used for grazing on the south side and the other land is used for paddock land which is cut and sold as hay.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson explained that the proposal is for up to five dwellings with all matters reserved and is supported by March Town Council and in their comments, they state that they recommend approval subject to recommendations from Highways and Anglian Water. She explained that, at the current time, the access relating to the proposal is still a reserved matter, however, in order to provide members assurance the necessary visibility splays of 2.4 by 43 metres can be achieved in either direction at the likely access point and this is all within the highway verge.

Mrs Jackson stated that the comments made by highways in the officer’s report at 5.2, including the concerns raised by the neighbours, can be addressed and a drawing to depict this has been provided to officers. She explained that she is unaware of capacity issues raised by Anglian Water and, therefore, it is understood that issues in this regard are acceptable.

Mrs Jackson made the point that the site is allocated for development under LP9 of the Local Plan and, therefore, the principle of development is acceptable and is acknowledged  in the officer’s report at 10.6. She explained that the application site is a residential garden and is in effect a self-contained area and is a relatively small parcel of land which does not compromise the wider delivery of the Broad Concept Area, making the point that it is not within a key or a central location within the Broad Concept Area and it is functionally separate from the wider land allocation and can, therefore, be considered as an inconsequential minor development which complies with policies LP7 and LP9, given the fact that there is no Broad Concept Plan in place.

Mrs Jackson stated that members have already made the point that the requirement for a Broad Concept Plan to be in place is out of date and that concerns have been raised with regards to the development of the site which would result in an urbanising affect, however, in her view, the reason listed for refusal is unfounded given that the Council has already allocated the land for development and, therefore, the urbanising effect in inevitable. She reiterated that the application is in outline form and the drawings submitted are indicative and as the drawings demonstrate there is the opportunity for the buildings to be sited clear of the vegetation on the site.

Mrs Jackson stated that she would be happy to accept a condition in relation to the submission of a biodiversity report and mitigation measures should the committee wish and she would also be happy to accept a condition to secure noise mitigation measures within the build and on the site boundaries to address any potential disturbance caused by the A141. She noted the concerns made by neighbours relating to the footpath but made the point that there is a footpath over the road which can be used by future residents to walk into town.

Mrs Jackson stated that this is an acceptable form of development which is supported in principle under Policy LP3, is on land already allocated for development, would not harm the sustainable delivery of the wider area and it has been demonstrated that safe access can be achieved. She made the point that other objections can be addressed by conditions which will be duly accepted by the applicants, and she asked for permission to be granted.

Members asked Mrs Jackson the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked why the amended plan for highways had only been submitted to officers today? Mrs Jackson stated that because the access was a reserved matter it was felt that the issue would be raised by the committee and, therefore, it was submitted as soon as was possible. Councillor Mrs French made the point that the Highway Authority have stated in the officer’s report that they are not satisfied, and the report has been in the public domain for some time. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that to expect Planning and Highway Officers to review the plan on the day of committee is unacceptable. Mrs Jackson stated that she appreciates that point and added that the Highways Authority stated that they were supportive of the scheme in principle.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he agrees with Councillor Mrs French and stated that consideration needs to be given by the agent to be more proactive and reactive by submitting information to the officers in a timely manner so informed decisions can be made.

·         Councillor Marks asked for clarification over the point that was made with regards to a likely access point, and he asked whether that was likely to change? Mrs Jackson stated that the access point was not confirmed because access is a reserved matter, and it is likely to be there as there are trees on the other side of where the access has been shown to be and that is the existing access to the site. She made the point that it makes sense for the access point to be there, however, it has been left open in case there is the requirement for an alteration either way in order to get the required visibility splays, but the splays can be achieved in either direction and in highway land so that it can remain unobstructive.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked what noise mitigation measures could be introduced if needed? Mrs Jackson responded that it could be measures such as triple glazing or acoustic fencing, dependent on members views and that would form part of the reserved matters stage.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she knows the area well and expressed the view that the officers have made the correct recommendation. She added that there is no footpath and it is back land development. Councillor Mrs French made the point that the supporters for the proposal appear to reside in Creek Road, Eastwood Avenue, Wherry Close, Elwyn Road, Plover Drive and Peterhouse Crecent, which are all roads within March East and March North Wards which are not located near the application site. She stated that she fully supports her residents, and it is a very dangerous road on a bend, and she will not support an approval on the application and will support the officer’s recommendation.

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

(Councillor Mrs French declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a member of March Town Council, but takes no part in Planning)