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 Shaun Lee, an objector. Mr Lee stated that a high level of 82.3% of the responses received oppose the application, with the proposal outlining the development to erect a number of 4-bed double storey detached properties which will apparently mirror the adjacent properties but, in his view, the adjacent properties are primarily 2-bed semi-detached single storey homes. He expressed the opinion that the application references missing information and highlights that the photograph of the proposed access road is that of Knights End Road and not Peas Hill Road.

Mr Lee stated that, whilst it is agreed that the Local Plan 2014 Policy LP9 outlines both strategic allocations and the broad locations for growth, it can very loosely indicate that any development east of the bypass is acceptable, however, digesting the specific details and key diagram the area east of the bypass and north of Gaul Road towards Wisbech Road is not included within this. He expressed the view that the policies map defines the settlement boundary and it clearly shows that the proposed development is in an area that is outside of the settlement boundary and is, therefore, defined as countryside development, with policies LP12 and LP18 not applying also.

Mr Lee expressed the view that the impact of noise pollution, given the proximity of the bypass, cannot be underestimated, with the proposed location being well below road level and having no substantial fence or natural soundproofing that could logically be applied and the obvious effect of noise funnelling and the increase in noise levels for the adjacent properties cannot be ignored. He made the point that as outlined by the Environment Agency the area is within Flood Zone 3 and as a result has a high risk of flooding, with the northern edge of the site, where the access road is proposed, having regular occurrences of stagnant water and flooding.

Mr Lee stated that the western edge has a shallow dyke, which acts as a natural drain for the bypass and, in his opinion, any development on this site would create concentration of rainwater from the rooftops and existing issues would worsen. He expressed the view that the area has existing sewerage constraints, there are nearby septic tanks in use and limited options for main sewerage, with the Government, just over a year ago, updating the waste management guidelines and for all new discharges if it is deemed not reasonable to connect to a public sewer then the installation of a sewage treatment system would be needed which in turn disperses liquid into or onto the surrounding area and this risks additional saturation.

Mr Lee expressed the opinion that the access roads are very narrow and raise concerns for safety, not only for the local children when playing nearby but it also restricts options for emergency vehicles, with any new development exaggerating the current issues. He expressed concern regarding the layout, in terms of proximity and projected elevation, with the development most likely impacting privacy, raising noise levels, causing pollution of light and raising concerns for health, safety and well-being of local residents.

Mr Lee expressed the opinion that any potential development in the area would cause harm to the rural appearance of a market town and if allowed to proceed would set a precedent for future developments and further encroachment on the countryside. He displayed on the presentation screen a table highlighting the breach of policy and previously refused local applications under the same infringement, which includes the location, noise, flood and environmental risks, access, layout concerns and lastly the impact on the character of the town.

Members asked questions of Mr Lee as follows:

·         Councillor Gerstner asked where he got the noise survey figures from? Mr Lee responded that these were from a previous application that is referenced in the application to the west of the bypass. Councillor Gerstner asked if he knew when this was carried out? Mr Lee responded that it was in 2021, with, in his view, there being no doubt with the increase in traffic that it has gotten worse.

·         Councillor Marks asked if his property backs onto this site? Mr Lee responded that he currently lives on West End directly opposite where the proposed development is likely to be.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked if he had any concerns about access to the development site? Mr Lee responded that are constraints currently with Peas Hill and emergency vehicles have at times had to push vehicles out of the way to gain access to a local substation when there was a fire recently and because of those constraints and the highway route that has been outlined there is concern for access to that site.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that when he visited the site there was a caravan on site and asked if he knows whether the site is currently being used for any purpose? Mr Lee responded that as he understands the caravan is used for storage for equipment for the horses that occupy the land, the land was originally designated as agricultural land but has been rented out by the owner as agricultural land.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the application seeks outline planning permission for up to 9 dwellings and at this stage it is only matters of access that is being looked at. She expressed the opinion that the application site is within the built-up framework of March and the committee report confirms that the principle of development is acceptable under policies of the Local Plan, however, the application has been recommended for refusal.

Mrs Jackson stated that the reasons for refusal include concerns with the visual impact of the development, the potential for noise caused by the A141 and the failure to meet the sequential test. She expressed the view, in relation to the visual impact, the site is within the built-up framework of March, it has been acknowledged that the principle of development is acceptable and, therefore, visual impact is inevitable.

Mrs Jackson expressed the opinion that the development will be set against the backdrop of the built-up settlement of the town when viewed from the public realm and along the A141 the development will be seen within the context of the remainder of the town, therefore, she feels it is unreasonable to say that the proposal would appear harmful. She added that in any event the indicative layout shows that the existing vegetation on the road boundary will remain and that there will be an internal roadway between the vegetation and the proposed dwellings, which would retain the feeling of openness and the green buffer which the committee report discusses and she would also highlight that this is an outline application and, therefore, the scale and design of the dwellings can be dealt with later and if the Local Planning Authority has specific design aspirations for the dwellings which will promote the character and quality of the area they would be happy to take those on board during the design process.

Mrs Jackson referred to the second reason for refusal that relates to the potential for noise caused by the A141 which is considered to cause harm to future residential amenities and whilst these comments have been noted, in her view, Fenland’s own Environmental Protection Team has raised no objection to the proposal and when the Council’s own technical experts do not consider there to be a harmful issue or an issue harmful enough to object she fails to see how this reason for refusal can be upheld. She feels the situation is no different to a recently approved development on the other side of the road in terms of noise impact and Environmental Protection have acknowledged this and raised no objections accordingly but she would take on board their comments and include the mitigation measures as part of any condition or subsequent reserved matters application.

Mrs Jackson referred to the third reason for refusal, which relates to the sequential test which is an issue the committee has discussed at length over the years, with the site being in Flood Zone 3 and officers highlight that there is other land in March which is at lower risk of flooding, however, this site is available and deliverable now. She expressed the view that there are significant benefits to the scheme which include providing housing within a primary market town which can be delivered in the short term and this would comply with the Government’s agenda of build, build, with this in mind and given that the Environment Agency has raised no objection to the proposal she would argue that the benefits gained from the development would outweigh the sequential test concerns.

Mrs Jackson expressed the opinion that the proposal represents an excellent opportunity to provide new housing within a primary market town which can be delivered in the short term, there are no technical objections to the proposal including Highways, the visual impact is somewhat subjective and requested that planning permission be granted.

Members asked questions of Mrs Jackson as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the mention of the other side of the road and asked what development this was? Mrs Jackson responded that it is in the committee report, it was an outline application in 2020 and reserved matters in 2021. Councillor Mrs French asked what it was for? Mrs Jackson responded residential development. Councillor Marks advised that this was the carpenter’s garage on the side of the road but if you go further along there is an acoustic fence which is quite high that virtually goes to the roundabout. Councillor Mrs French stated that she did think this but this was certainly not for 9 dwellings.

·         Councillor Marks stated that dwellings across the road are a distance away from the fencing and this development will be a lot closer and there will be vehicles speeding up and braking going into the roundabout and asked if any noise mitigation had been put into the site? Mrs Jackson responded that the application is in outline so no details have been submitted but their position is that the Council’s technical experts are telling them that there is no issue and that they are not going to object, recommending mitigation measures as part of a condition which they will happily accept.

·         Councillor Marks referred to flooding on the site, it is in Flood Zone 3, the committee questions constantly the feasibility of building on these flood zones and asked if she was not concerned about the site flooding bearing in mind the field across the road floods on occasion? Mrs Jackson responded that she takes a lead from the technical experts, with the Environment Agency telling them there is no issue and they are not objecting. Councillor Marks made the point that they are also producing a map that says Flood Zone 3. Mrs Jackson replied that this is an academic process which directs new developments to certain areas and what they are looking at is the technical detail in this case and they are saying they are not objecting.

Officers made the following comments:

·         Matthew Leigh made the point that the Environment Agency do not object ever on the lack of a sequential test that is the responsibility of the Local Planning Authority. He stated to say that the Environment Agency has not objected and, therefore, there is no issue with flooding is false.

·         David Rowen referred to the comments from the Environmental Health Team which states that “a robust noise impact assessment should be undertaken by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant to establish what extent passing vehicle noise is likely to have at the proposed site and what mitigation measure will, therefore, be necessary to protect both external and internal amenity areas” and made the point that they are not giving a free pass on the issue of noise they are saying that there is potentially an issue that would need to be addressed and the issue officers would have in dealing with this through a condition is that without that noise survey being undertaken they do not know whether it can be satisfactorily addressed or not.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she knows this site exceptionally well, it used to be in her ward and she feels the application is ludicrous, it is in Flood Zone 3, the noise on the bypass would be horrendous, under the MATS scheme they are going to upgrade Peas Hill Roundabout, it was not included in the Neighbourhood Plan and there has never been any development on that side of the road and she does not think there should be. She made the point that West End used to be viewed as the jewel of March and to build houses on that side blights West End. Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that the officer’s recommendation is correct.

·         Councillor Marks agreed with the comments from Councillor Mrs French and expressed amazement that the application is in front of committee, the land is wet, there are environmental issue, vehicles coming in and out of the roundabout cause noise and pollution and the access is not great

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)