A perfectly legal procedure that can ensure any planning application is considered by councillors as opposed to relying on an officer’s ruling is being used this week at Fenland District Council to decide the fate of nine houses. Mick Brownlow and Nancy Davies are hoping to get an ‘in principle’ decision from Fenland Council to build the homes at his yard at 400 Creek Road, March.
Despite a planning officer advising that the “development would be located within an area of high and medium risk of surface water flooding”, the couple will try their luck before councillors. Which in recent times has enjoyed a high level of success for many others.
The same officer – quoting council planning policies – also recommended refusal because of the “impacts on the character and appearance of the area” and because building homes there fail the sequential test. In other words, Mr Brownlow hadn’t explored possible alternative sites.
“It is therefore considered that the location and land use of the proposed development are not acceptable,” says a report to go the planning committee on August 7.
“During 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 the current proposal.
“In view of the unresolved flood risk and associated conflicts with the development plan, the application is recommended for refusal.”
Mr Brownlow’s agent is Morton & Hall Consulting Ltd who thanked officers for their advice but replied they wished for the application “to proceed to planning committee”.
The report to the committee says it is before them because of the “number of representations contrary to recommendation”.
These include March town council – who believe it should be allowed – but Mr Brownlow is also able to take advantage of the council’s own protocols which allow for it to go committee when 6 “written opinions” differ from the officer’s recommendation.
Technically these “six written opinions from 6 individuals, groups or organisations” should be from within the ward area or adjacent ward area.
In this instance the committee will hear they have been 9 representations in support of the application from “local residents / interested parties.
“Eight representations are from residents of March (1x Creek Road, 1x Wisbech Road, 1x Upwell Road, 1x Nursery Drive, 1x Maple Grove, 1x Robingoodfellows Lane, 1x Alexander Gardens and 1x Monument View)”.
The ninth letter of support, from Sean Brown of New Woods Drive, Wimblington, says the “need for new properties continues to increase, utilising a brownfield site has to be a priority in the approach to FDC attaining the number of properties to meet community needs”.
Mark Carpenter, of Creek Road, March, believes the houses are needed and these are in “a good area away from town but also only a 15 minute walk. Perfect”.
Alfie Jaggard of Maple Grove, March, tells planners the houses will be “a brilliant addition to March to increase economy and population into the new generation and uplift of the new town that is currently being done”.
Eammonn Brown of Monument View, March, says “family deserve to build” whilst Maria Walker, of Upwell Road, March, thinks it would be “great to see some nice looking places on a nice cul-de-sac location”.
Lesley O’Grady of Alexander Gardens, March, is happy to see houses built as he feels “the area looks a mess as it is”.
And Tracey Deighton of Nursery Drive, March, says “the current land is overgrown and wasted so any development will only enhance the area”.
One district councillor opposes the housing.
Cllr Tim Taylor says: “I have to recommend refusal. Our drainage catchment is at capacity to deal with any more surface water. Thus, allowing any more developments will potentially have catastrophic consequences with potential flooding within Fenland.”
March town council, who considered the application in April, recommends approval but says a S106 will be required “as per the Neighbourhood Plan, given that the total number of dwellings to be delivered by the developer shall exceed ten. Continuing concerns over flooding”.
The application is for nine homes.
Officers will remind the planning committee that “the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision-making.
“Where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan (including any neighbourhood plans that form part of the development plan), permission should not usually be granted”.
FACT FILE
Planning officers say that within the brownfield land, there are commercial buildings and land being used for the storage of commercial and building materials, vehicles, and a caravan.
The lawful use of the brownfield land has been established through planning permission for ‘use of the site for car repairs and servicing; joinery workshop and showroom; manufacture and sale of concrete products; storage of building materials and plant involving erection of buildings; the use and extension of existing buildings and stationing of 2 no. portacabins and 8 no. storage bins.’
