Agenda item

To determine the Application

The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04)) refers during its deliberations.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Tim Slater, acting on behalf of the Agent in support of the application.

Mr Slater stated that there is an error contained within the report at 9.3 where it states that no community consultation had taken place, this is incorrect as one took place on 16 November 2017. He added that the layout is indicative only and all matters except access will be subject to reserved matters.

Mr Slater stated that the application is for a sustainable development, in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and in his view, it is a sustainable and accessible location and is policy compliant.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that she is very interested in the Section 106 contributions and added that in her opinion suitable housing association accommodation is important and required. She added that it is a very healthy proposition of £1.65 million and she would hope that the relevant parties involved with the application adhere to the delivery of their promise.

·         Councillor Mrs Bligh stated in her opinion that the site is well placed and the improvements that are planned to the Peas Hill roundabout in her opinion will be welcomed. She feels the proposal in its outline form meets policy, however she worries that the Section 106 Obligations will not come to fruition with a later viability study, adding that whilst Fenland and the town of March need houses there also needs to be contributions towards education and health.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that the development would enhance the area and she will be supporting approval of this application.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that 12 statutory consultees have raised no objections to this application and, therefore, he cannot see any reason for it to be refused.

·         Councillor Sutton asked for clarification with a couple of anomalies within the report.  At point 5.9 of the report it mentions that the proposal is for 33 homes for affordable rent and shared ownership, but at 9.46, it states 30 units and he asked for clarity. David Rowen confirmed that the correct figure is 30.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that at 5.19 in the officer’s report where it mentions the provision of GP surgery needs, it mentions Mercheford House Surgery, and at 9.54, it quotes the Riverside Practice and asked for clarification of whether it is both surgeries or if it is just one. David Rowen agreed that there is a discrepancy, however the main issue for members to consider is that £42,435 will be secured towards GP provision in the vicinity, however, clarification will be sought from the NHS.

·         Councillor Sutton commented on the Section 106 contributions and highlighted the financial contribution per plot, stating that, in his opinion, he has serious doubts as to whether the site will be developed based on the figures before members today. He added that it is not affordable to build the site out based on those figures.

·         Councillor Court commented that although he is the Ward Councillor for the proposal, he has not been lobbied on the application and having studied the report, his main concern is the access onto Wisbech Road for 118 houses, with Wisbech Road being the main route into March from Wisbech, Peterborough and Kings Lynn and there is a great deal of traffic on the road. He made the point that In 2015, the speed limit on the road was reduced from 40mph to 30mph due to the risk surrounding school children trying to cross the road, the road is already an extremely busy road and to add an additional 118 houses will only add to the risk of road traffic accidents and in his opinion, he feels that a smaller development of 30 homes would be a better option. He also feels that the impact on schools and health provision also needs to be taken into consideration.

·         Nick Harding stated that he has reviewed the NHS letter that was received by officers and it mentions both GP practices, so clarification will need to be sought, however, he does have a recollection of a proposed merger between surgeries, but this information will still need to be confirmed.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws referred to the comments made by Councillor Court and added that there are no highways objections to the proposal, subject to the provision of the works at Peas Hill roundabout and the financial contribution towards the cycle infrastructure.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws agrees with Councillor Sutton’s concerns with regard to the Section 106 agreement, and in her opinion, believes a viability study will be undertaken going forward.

·         The Chairman added that it has to be accepted that the Section 106 agreement is part of the application and what happens in the future does not form part of the determination before members today.

·         Councillor Hay commented that she agrees that the Section 106 has to be accepted as it stands and 118 houses on that site is not, in her opinion, overdevelopment. She added that whilst it will create more vehicular movements, not all traffic will be leaving the site at the same time and there will be the benefit of the improvements to the road leading to the junction, which could ease the existing traffic issues already in existence.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Hay and decided that the application be APPROVED, as per the officer’s recommendation.