Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall explained that the officer’s report confirms that it is a brownfield site which has been in the Brownlow family’s ownership for 40 years and has long been established as a yard which has expanded over many years with the site having been used as a patio company, car dealer, furniture maker, storage, persons with banger cars, persons with reptiles, a joinery workshop and portacabins. He stated that at present as the officer's report confirms there is storage, various commercial buildings, building materials and various vehicles.

Mr Hall made the point that in the officer’s report the Highway Authority does not object to the proposal, not only to the access point but also that the visibility splays can be achieved. He added that even though the application is for Planning in Principle (PIP), consideration has been given to the fact that if the application is approved to the technical details.

Mr Hall stated that the whole site is located in Flood Zone 1, there would be associated drainage and if the application is approved there would be a requirement for an adoptable footpath to the front of a site, street lighting and widening the road, with the opportunity to allow a community benefit of the road being widened all the way along where it is currently narrow. He referred to the location map on the presentation screen and pointed out the site and the access point and explained that there have been two other delegated officer approvals here which are located where the red line is on the small section of land adjacent to the access way and along the frontage which already has PIP for residential dwellings and are located in Flood Zone 1, with extant permission under delegated approval for up to three dwellings around the corner of Creek Road to Flaggrass Road.

Mr Hall referred to the photos on the screen which displayed the existing access way which is a track, with the photo taken in December 2022 in the winter months, which shows the area to be unkept, there is standing water, and it looks very untidy and the second photo displays a Google overview which clearly shows that the site is a brownfield site, where the access is at the moment and the proposed access will be over the existing one to improve it. He explained that on the 30 July he spoke to Middle Level Commissioners regarding the proposal site and the letter they had sent out, during the conversation the riparian ditch was discussed which is located along the northern boundary and a discussion took place with regards to the discharging into that ditch a greenfield runoff rate, so it has to be attenuated through a crate system or a basin and then a discharge point, with the officer at Middle Level stating that the proposal would be acceptable, and she did advise that a direct discharge with no attenuation or anything would not be acceptable.

Mr Hall referred to the photos which show the standing water, and expressed the view that the access at the moment is pretty poor, with standing water and it is not going to improve and will probably get worse but if the proposal is approved then an engineered drainage solution would have to be undertaken to address those issues. He made the point that there have been no neighbouring objections including no objections from Environmental Health, Archaeology, Highways and March Town Council, with all of the site being located in Flood Zone 1 and officers have confirmed that this site is brownfield and would be efficient use of brownfield land.

Mr Hall stated that as part of any technical details, the road would have to be widened along with the formation of a footpath and the introduction of street lighting for which discussions with Highways have already taken place. He made the point that agents are often told, quite rightly, to look at the character of the area which in this case is currently a mess, however, if the proposal was to be approved with the introduction of some residential dwellings the character of the area would be vastly improved.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that this site already has approvals for two other PIP applications and there is another application which has been submitted for six dwellings which is still pending and now a PIP proposal has been submitted for 9 dwellings. She asked whether the intention is for that to become a full-blown estate? Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen and explained that there is a PIP at the front which has approval and the further pending application for 6 has had the technical details submitted and then another three. He referred to the screen and highlighted the green area and the yard which is split in two between two different owners within the Brownlow family but he has not received any instruction to advance the three on the corner or the small piece of land and there have been no discussions or instructions for any of the remaining areas of land.

·         Councillor Marks asked whether the road improvements are still being introduced for the two PIP applications? Mr Hall explained that the application at the front is still pending and that includes street lighting, an adoptable footpath and widening of the road and, therefore, that scheme is being progressed, with the details available on Public Access.

·         Councillor Marks asked whether a letter confirming the conversation has been received to confirm the agreement regarding the drainage? Mr Hall explained that he has received a standard response from Middle Level and then following that he had a telephone conversation with them on the 30 July and it was conversation over the phone about surface water drainage going forward if the application was approved and, therefore, nothing has been put in writing to that effect. Councillor Marks stated the site is known to him and he is aware of just how wet the site can get, especially in the winter months, and he would have liked to have seen the actual response from the IDB, which is site specific concerning the drainage on the site.

·         Councillor Hicks asked for confirmation that the entire site falls within Flood Zone 1? Mr Hall stated that the whole of this PIP application is in Flood Zone 1.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked for further clarity concerning the comments from the Archaeology Team at the County Council and the fact that they do not have any reservations as she is aware that the site is located near the Fen Causeway and the comments from the Archaeologists state that there would need to be an archaeological investigation should any works commence. Mr Hall stated that other applications just off Flaggrass Road, such as the Piggeries, which was approved a couple of years ago is extremely close and maybe on the Fen Causeway, was subject to an archaeological dig and the applicant is aware that there would be the need for a next stage contamination report and archaeology and he explained that the site at the front may also have to have one as well.

·         Councillor Marks referred to 1.5 of the officer’s report which states that in the course of the application the officers have provided the agent with the opportunity to explore alternative options for the site which would avoid siting development within the area of high and medium risk of surface water flooding such as relocating the proposed access, however, the agent has confirmed that they wish to proceed with this current proposal. Councillor Marks asked Mr Hall to explain the reasoning behind that decision? Mr Hall referred to the location plan on the presentation screen and he pointed out to the left where the access is shown which also encompasses the existing track, explaining that the access is also in the same position as the application which already has a PIP but as there is another application pending it has been kept there because there were queries from Highways with regards to the access, radius kerbs, and splays on the one at the front. He added that this proposal has been tied in with the application which already has PIP and the technical details that are pending which is why the access has been kept there to tie in with the other development.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·      Councillor Hicks referred to 10.10 of the officer’s report and stated that it confirms that the application site is all located in Flood Zone 1, but within the conclusion in the report it states that by virtue of its location and land use it is within an area of high and medium risk of water flooding. He asked officers to clarify why they have provided a recommendation of refusal when the site in located in a Flood Zone 1 area as it appears that officers are going against their own policy? David Rowen stated that fluvial flooding is what Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3 cover and when considering the proposal, the issue being considered is surface water flooding which is a different source of flooding.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she totally agrees with the officers with regard to surface water flooding and as the application site falls within her County Council Division, she knows the site very well and every time there is heavy rainfall it floods, with there being a field and a ditch in the vicinity which has caused issues in the past and there is surface water flooding there. She added that with regards to the drainage board, it is her understanding that this falls under March Fifth Board, where she is a representative on, and any time that there has been an application for this they do raise concerns because that is March North and it does not have the infrastructure. Councillor Mrs French added that further down Creek Road, there is an Anglian Water depot and there are five to seven lorries every day bringing in their tanks and that is obviously an ongoing thing. She made the point that she did ask the agent with regards to how many further applications are in the pipeline and she expressed the view that should the application be approved; she can foresee there being a complete estate down there. Councillor Mrs French added that it is not in the March Neighbourhood Plan and when that was adopted it was specifically stated that because of the infrastructure in March North it cannot take anymore, with further up the road there being a planning application for St John's College for 99 dwellings which was refused and lost on appeal. She added that this is not a location to intensify housing, the officer’s recommendation in her opinion is correct and she would like to see the outcome of the pending application for six dwellings before any more PIP applications are considered.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the issue of the surface water does cause him concern and he is disappointed that the Middle Level have not provided a letter to confirm the discussions that took place with Mr Hall. He expressed the view the officers have made the correct recommendation.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she is a member of eleven drainage boards and added that March Fifth are over capacity, referring to a report which was circulated which states that they will not allow anything unless it is greenfield flow which obviously then means attenuation tanks have to be included. She reiterated that she cannot support the application as it is now.

Proposed by Councillor Hicks, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind.)

(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)