12 light industrial units at 49 Whittlesey Road, March

What was proposed

The application sought 12 light industrial units, a link extension to existing units and demolition of an existing building.

“Erect 12 x light industrial units and a link extension to existing units, involving the demolition of existing building…”

“This proposal seeks to erect 12 light industrial units, link two existing units, as well as demolish an existing single storey store / office at 49 Whittlesey Road, March.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contains three light industrial units in the countryside outside March, with hardstanding, open storage, nearby businesses, a drainage ditch and a marina.

“This site currently contains three light industrial units and lies on the south side of Whittlesey Road, March, in the countryside outside of and functionally isolated from the town.”

“The site is bordered by 2-metre-high palisade fencing. A drainage ditch is located beyond the southern rear boundary with a grassed field and the marina beyond. To the east are two industrial buildings in use by D.R. Betts Carpentry, Fen View Motors, Anglian Mobility, Fenn Holidays, ABC Boat Hire and LA Motor Group, as well as a residential property at 2 Marina Drive.”

Officer report

Earlier development

Earlier permissions covered office accommodation, a coach garage, palisade fencing, a garage extension and a two-bay coach garage.

“Reference Description Decision F/YR05/0317/F Alterations to existing garage / workshop to form additional office accommodation. Granted – 18/04/2005 F/YR08/0729/F Erection of office building, four bay coach garage and 2 metre high palisade fencing to west and north boundaries with associated parking. Granted – 19 December 2008 F/YR16/0648/F Erection of a front extension to existing coach garage. Granted – 19 September 2016.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the proposal harmful urbanisation in the countryside, unsustainable because of car reliance, and unacceptable because the flood-risk sequential test was not passed.

“The proposal, therefore, falls to be considered against the policies of restraint that apply to the rural area - principally FLP Policy LP3 - to protect the attractive undeveloped rural character. The proposal would be a significant urbanisation of the countryside.”

“The site is also within Flood Zone 3 - that is, is in an area at the highest risk of flooding - in respect of which a sequential test is required be passed (as per FLP Policy LP14 and the NPPF) to establish if there are alternative suitable sites at lesser flood risk that should be developed in preference to a site within Flood Zone The purpose of the sequential test is to direct new development to sites at the least risk of flooding.”

Officer report

Residents’ views

Eleven supporting comments referred to the brownfield site, existing industrial uses, modern buildings, local need, reduced travel and job creation.

“Eleven supporting comments received from residents of March (10) and Wimblington raising the following summarised issues:”

“Supporting Comments Officer Response Site is brownfield where use has ceased. This will be addressed in the Principle of Development section. There are already commercial and industrial uses adjacent to the site. This will be addressed in the Principle of Development section. Light industrial use already exists on site. This will be addressed in the Principle of Development section. The buildings look very modern. This will be assessed in the Layout and Design section.”

Officer report

What the agent said

The agent said the site had long-standing bus use, was brownfield and partly occupied, met local demand, created employment and had no technical objections.

Members’ debate

Members supporting the proposal said the site was surrounded by industry, businesses needed units, employment mattered and a footpath was not essential.

“Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows: • Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that the map tells a story as the site is surrounded by industrial units, a carpentry shop, motor mechanics, Fox’s Marina, the approved Force One site and the Middle Level Commissioner’s offices, with the industrial units approved opposite in Flood Zone 3 under officer delegation.”

“Growth a policy being brought in to help build these type of units and the Council should be supporting businesses, with this being what is needed in Fenland, it wants to retain business as it is not just about bringing new business into the area but the fact that if there is a business that relocates outside the area people lose their jobs.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted permission against the officer recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions.

“Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions.”

“Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that it is not a rural area but industrialised, the fact that it brings employment and prosperity outweigh any perceived detrimental harm to the character of the area, it is not an unsustainable location, there is a technical solution to overcome the fact that the site lies in Flood Zone 3 and there is a need for this type of development in Fenland.”

Minutes