Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alan Davies presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Angela Johnson of Wimblington Parish Council. Councillor Johnson stated that there have been a number of previous applications, an appeal against an enforcement notice and now another planning application with retrospective inclusions. She expressed the view that this is a large agricultural/industrial warehouse, not a garden shed, being built to house large heavy vehicles, erected in the grounds of the dwelling of 6 Bridge Lane, with the property itself already housing three double brick built garages.

 

Councillor Johnson expressed the opinion that the application has not retrospectively erected a shed, an industrial storage unit has been erected that towers above the already uncharacteristic 7 foot high brick wall to a height of almost 19 foot for the industrial storage unit, which invades the skyline of a lovely quiet residential country lane. She continued that the industrial unit has, in her view, impacted upon the historic environment and agricultural nature of Bridge Lane’s surrounding countryside.

 

Councillor Johnson expressed the view that shortening the length of this industrial unit has no bearing on the fact that it imposes on the close residential dwellings, some already enclosed behind the 7 foot brick wall and it closes off all the previous open views across agricultural fields and the countryside and if the applicant is granted permission and the industrial unit is made smaller she questioned where the applicant intends storing the rest of his vehicles. She made the point that the applicant does already have the use of three big brick built garages integral to the dwelling.

 

Councillor Johnson expressed the opinion that the land is not being changed to domestic use, it is being changed to house an industrial storage unit, which is not domestic by any means. She referred to the flood issues in Bridge Lane and the large area of impermeable ground that is covered on this site can, in her view, only exasperate this problem, especially when including the surface area of the roof of the industrial unit.

 

Councillor Johnson stated that Wimblington is an historic village that should not be eroded by the construction of an uncharacteristic building within its village environment as of Bridge Lane. She made the point that the Inspector dismissed the appeal against the enforcement notice, part of this being that it is an uncharacteristic building within the environment and the Planning Officer, the Parish Council and local residents all recommend refusal of this application.

 

Councillor Johnson expressed the opinion that the enforcement notice should be implemented and action taken and if the applicant wishes to keep their old rare steam engines indoors then maybe they should look into an industrial unit in one of the nearby industrial estates. She asked that committee to take into consideration the impact this is having on local residents and refuse the application.

 

Members asked questions of Councillor Johnson as follows:

·         Councillor Marks referred to a previous application at the committee in the lane and the landowner for that application saying he had undertaken a lot of mitigation work already, he is putting in a pond and that is helping the local area. He asked since the area has been concreted on this application site has there been any localised flooding in that area? Councillor Johnson responded that there was flooding in 2021 and 2022, which she has experienced as she lives locally. Councillor Marks asked if she was attributing it to this one piece of concrete? Councillor Johnson responded no it cannot be attributed to one single thing, it is because there are 88 dwellings at the front top end of Bridge Lane, along with Lily Avenue and there are 44 further dwellings currently being constructed and it is the impact of all of that that is pushing the water down this way, as it is on a hill.

·         Councillor Benney referred to it being said it was an industrial unit and asked what industry is taking place here? Councillor Johnson responded that she referred to it looking like an industrial unit, the size and colour of it, which match with the industrial units you would see across on the Eastwood End industrial estate. Councillor Benney asked if it is being used for an industrial or commercial purpose? Councillor Johnson responded that she has no idea what it is being used for apart from storage of a steam engine, tractors and various large heavy vehicles.

·         Councillor Marks made the point that it could be a hobby shed with a large hobby and asked Councillor Johnson if she agreed? Councillor Johnson responded that she would not agree that it is a shed but a large industrial metal unit and questioned whether Councillor Marks had actually seen it. Councillor Marks stated that he cannot see a lot of it from the bypass and when he has come down Bridge Lane it does not feel it is that visible. He remembers discussing the application for the property being built on the site and the height of it and made the point that you cannot tell that the property is any taller than any of the others. Councillor Johnson agreed that you may not see the unit from the bypass but it is about the visual impact from the village side.

·         Councillor Benney asked what distance is this structure from the village as it is right on the edge of Wimblington questioning the visibility. Councillor Johnson stated that it depends where you are coming to it from the village but did not know the actual distance but it can be seen from a distance. Councillor Connor stated that it is roughly 400-500 metres from Lily Avenue and about 300 yards from the top of Bridge Lane. Councillor Benney stated that this is if you could see it through the 88 houses that have just been built.

·         Councillor Marks asked where would the centre of the village be? Councillor Johnson responded that where the village hall is but Wimblington has expanded that much now the centre of the village could be moved closer towards the 88 dwellings that have been built. She added that it is not just about the village but the people who live in Bridge Lane and the impact it already has on them. Councillor Johnson stated it is also about the countryside, which she knows members feels has already been eroded by the 88 dwellings, but it does not mean it has to carry on being eroded by an industrial unit being put there as well. Councillor Marks expressed the view that the same argument could be put forward for Mr Knowles very large warehousing, one by the church on the A141 and also the other in the village, but there was not that many complaints as this application is causing with it being a smaller development. Councillor Johnson responded that this is not a development, it is just an industrial unit and there were a lot of complaints about Mr Knowles site in Manea Road as she represented that as well and the same thing with Mr Knowles site in the middle of the village.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that it is commendable that Councillor Johnson is at committee fighting for the residents and referred to the report where it states that there have only been objections from 5 properties, asking is that because it is not a very built-up area? Councillor Johnson responded that the objections will be from the people that predominantly live in Bridge Lane, people from outside Bridge Lane may not be aware of the planning application.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he finds this surprising as in Manea if there is an application submitted that people do not like the first thing it hits is the local Facebook page so he expressed the view that it is strange that there are only 5 objection letters with a large quantity of people living in the area. Councillor Johnson disagreed because the fact is that although it goes on Wimblington Parish Council’s website not everybody reads it and if they had wanted to push it out further a lot more objections could have been submitted. She stated that the objections that have been received have come from people who live in the environment, the support has come from people that do not live in the vicinity so, in her view, it is more important for her to be here to support the residents that have objected.

·         Councillor Connor believes the applicant likes steam engines and the unit is to house that steam engine and whilst it can be moved somewhere else you cannot achieve better security than having it on the property. He expressed the opinion that this is a hobby and asked if Councillor Johnson agrees that for security reasons it needs to be on the applicant’s property? Councillor Johnson agreed that if this is the applicant’s hobby but questioned whether he needs something that large to house one steam engine and also should he be allowed to erect something detrimental to the other residents along the street. Councillor Connor stated that with the chimney it probably does need to be that big height wise and it would need to be undercover to protect it, and if this is only being put in this unit then it is for personal use. Councillor Johnson made the point that the argument is not what it is being used for but the size of it, it is out of character within the lane and it is intruding on other people’s lives. She feels that if the applicant does have this type of hobby he should have thought about where to store it out of his garden.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mark Turner, an objector. Mr Turner stated that he is at committee because the building has been put up without permission, it has gone to appeal and been dismissed. He stated that he was speaking as this building is at the back of his home and there are other residents in attendance where it affects their houses and they have not had the chance to come to meeting like this to object before the building was erected and that opportunity had been taken away from them.

 

Mr Turner made the point that the proposal has been to appeal and the applicant has been told to take it down but nothing has happened and objectors are at the meeting today doing what should have been done originally. He added that when the applicant put his application in for his house, several residents along Bridge Lane supported it but are at the meeting because the building affects their lives, the views out of their windows and the value of their properties.

 

Mr Turner questioned why the building was put at the back of his house and if the view is that it is going to be used for steam engines and is so valuable would the applicant not want it nearer to his home but he has not placed it out of the back of his home so he opens his windows and sees it every day but put it out the back of neighbouring properties, with the applicant having approximately 2 acres of land he could have placed it on but had to place it outside neighbouring properties. He stated he does not understand the reason for changing the land from agricultural to domestic as it is an agricultural area that is being squeezed for planning from every direction and, in his view, every piece of agricultural land should be hung onto.

 

Mr Turner stated that the building at the moment is large and there is a reduction of one or two bays and when the Inspector published his report he commented because an offer had been made to reduce the building, quoting from the report “the removal of one bay would reduce the effects on the property to some extent but not sufficiently to overcome the harm arising from the outlook” so shortening the building as proposed will not make any difference to his garden and the light he is using in his house. He made the point that his garden is overshadowed by this building, therefore, part of his lawn does not grow properly and part of his lawn at this time of year is very damp and in the earlier months of the year it is underwater only by about an inch but it never was before the building was erected or the yard concreted.

 

Mr Turner expressed the view that he questions the drainage of the existing building, with the gutter that has been put on the front of the building discharging onto open concrete and the back of the building having no gutters. He questioned that if the content of the building is so precious would you not want the building to be water tight and looked after properly so why is there no gutter on the back of the building, with the water from that building either running down the building or in heavy rains overshoots onto the neighbours gardens, No.10, and the road along there, and from what he has been told their garden floods as well and whilst it is not a lot of water there was not any before that building was erected.  

 

Mr Turner referred to the Development Officer stating when the appeal was dismissed that the development harms the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of the residential occupiers of the adjoining land. He feels if approved then committee would be going back on a refusal that was made several months ago.

 

Members asked questions of Mr Turner as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked how far away it is from his dwelling? Mr Turner responded that it about 1½ metres from his boundary and approximately 40 foot from his house.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked Mr Turner to point out his house on the map. Mr Turner stated that his property is No.8 and the building at the present time comes right down to the fence.

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to flooding and asked if there is any evidence of that? Mr Turner responded that he has only experienced flooding since that building has been erected. Councillor Imafidon asked how long ago that was? Mr Turner responded that he believes it was in 2023.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked with the building in its present form there is just over a metre between the boundary fence and the building so what is the condition of the fence and the land in between the fence and the building? Mr Turner responded that there is his fence and the applicant has erected a wall that was approved with his property but the building was not approved with the house and put up without permission.

·         Councillor Connor presumes that the 1½ metres between the boundary and the shed is for maintenance work to be undertaken so if that was to stay the applicant could put anything up there, such as drainpipes, to undertake the job properly so the excess water from the roof can go into the drains, which is not insurmountable? Mr Turner agreed it was not but questioned whether the drains are in existence considering the building was erected without permission, it was not overseen by officers and inspections have not been undertaken to see if there are any drains there. He stated that if members read the appeal they would find that the Inspector said that although there were traces of drains he could not confirm that those drains were there and during construction he and the neighbours did not see any drains being dug so there is an area of concern about the drainage on the building. Councillor Connor stated that he deals with appeals all the time and just because a Planning Inspector says they do not like something it is their judgement and a different Planning Inspector might have a different judgement. Mr Turner acknowledged the point being made but stated that Planning Inspectors are employed and fully qualified to do their job and they not only look at it from the angle of what they see, they look at the regulations and rules they have to work by as do planning officers and if committee is going against them he would argue why are there planning officers and an appeal mechanism but recognises it is a matter of opinion.

·         Councillor Marks asked if he was on cesspits or mains sewage? Mr Turner responded that he was on mains sewage.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that when the applicant contacted him regarding this site, they were pro-active in arranging a meeting on site with the enforcement officer in October and at the time the issues were discussed following the enforcement notice being upheld and discussions did take place regarding reducing the amount of concrete hardstanding and the applicant stated that he still needed quite a bit of it for the manoeuvring of the steam engine. He expressed the opinion that the steam engine is a heritage asset worth over £1 million and needs to be protected and that is why the building is that high.

 

Mr Hall stated that it was discussed on site to reduce the length of the shed and as they are encouraged to do they submitted some sketches to the enforcement officer saying this is what they were proposing to do and the enforcement officer discussed it with officers, came back and said to submit a full application. He added that it did say that ideally they would want some more hardstanding broken out but nowhere on the e-mails did it say that you need to reduce this shed more, although he acknowledges it is an enforcement officer’s opinion.

 

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that the application in front of committee today is 99.9% the same as those sketches that he submitted, with this application reducing the length of the shed, which is about 30 metres long to 17.9 metres, nearly half. He stated that the appeal proposed to remove one bay but they have not done this and have removed two bays so there is material change here from what was refused by that appeal and, in his view, by reducing nearly half the size of this shed it will lessen any perceived impact.

 

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that the shed cannot be seen from the street scene, it is set back 50 metres from Bridge Lane and there is no overlooking mentioned in the report as the proposal does not have any doors or windows facing neighbouring properties along Bridge Lane. He referred to the concrete hardstanding being highlighted as an issue and they have shown breaking out a third of this and that area which is directly behind people’s properties would be laid to grass, which has been submitted since day one and the nearest property to the reduced shed would be 27-28 metres.

 

Mr Hall expressed the view that a key point, listening to the previous speaker, is under Section 10.16 of the officer’s report is it confirms that the revised reduced building is now satisfactory in relation to some of the properties in terms of overshadowing and overbearing impact and those properties are 6A, 8, 8A and 10. He feels the appeal has been looked at and they are trying to reduce any perceived impact on the neighbouring properties and the applicant is happy to provide a detailed landscaping scheme for the proposal, which could be secured via a condition.

 

Mr Hall referred to mention in the report about character of the area, but down this same road behind No.3 on the opposite side of the road there was a haulage yard, which was there in the 80s, 90s and stopped in around 2006 where development has been allowed on this land, and there is concrete hardstanding here, there were sheds here and large vehicles all associated with that haulage yard so he feels that the idea of a shed down this road is not out of character. He expressed the view that the word rural and semi-rural is used in the report a lot, which he does not disagree with, so in a rural and semi-rural area you would expect to see sheds and this application is for a shed.

 

Mr Hall made the point that there are no technical objections to this application, the shed is being reduced by nearly half, the concrete hardstanding is being broken up closest to the properties and there is a steam engine in the shed, a small ride-on tractor, grass cutter and a trailer.

 

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to Mr Turner stating that there is no guttering on the building and asked why, is the building not finished, and if guttering is put on is it going into storage? Mr Hall responded that it is in the appeal that there are gullies in the hard standing that are then piped to a private ditch which is owned by the applicant. He stated that he did not see any downpipes so agrees with what Mr Turner said but does not think it is finished and the applicant could put a gutter on the back of the building, there is a gutter on the front which drains down the front and the concrete hardstanding is sloped to go into these gullies.

·         Councillor Connor stated he was glad about the mention of a landscaping scheme and if this application is approved he would like to see this as a condition, with a good specimen of trees, bushes and hedges native to British species, which would help screen Mr Turner’s property and other properties. He would also like to see big water butts there to catch any water, which could be reused. Mr Hall responded that the applicant would be happy to undertake a landscaping scheme, which would be undertaken by a landscape gardener and the concrete hardstanding to create the garden is being broken out nearest to neighbouring properties and that is why in the report, under Section 10.16, it says that the impact on 6A, 8, 8A and 10 is considered satisfactory by officers.

·         Councillor Marks expressed confusion as there is a concreted area and they are hoping to take down nearly half a barn and asked why it is being looked at to put a grass area in there. He cannot see that any property can overlook that and see a concreted area or grass and questioned the reasoning for removing this concrete area, which may cause problems if removed, but understands about putting trees and plants on the border. Mr Hall responded that they read the appeal refusal and there were concerns about the length of the building and hardstanding so they have tried to lessen that impact on neighbouring residents and the amount of hardstanding shown is fractionally more than shown on the sketches just to try and mitigate against any perceived impacts on neighbours. He acknowledged that to break it out, there are below ground drains, there will be dust and noise and would be quite a lot of work but if the concrete hardstanding was left in that area what would go there, no buildings, possibly parking.

·         Councillor Marks asked for clarification about a wall that has been erected and questioned it being a new wall when the development was built? Mr Hall responded in the affirmative. Councillor Marks asked what height that would be? Mr Hall responded that he has not measured it but believes it to be 2.1 metres.

·         Councillor Benney referred to distances between buildings and believes he was told by Mr Hall that the distances had to be 21 metres and asked if this was still an acceptable distance? Mr Hall responded that they are told between first floor windows and the neighbouring first floor windows it should be 20 metres and from the side of this reduced building to the nearest property would be 28 metres, but there are no windows in this reduced building.

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to the hardstanding being broken up and this application not being the same as that appealed and dismissed but asked if there are any flood attenuation measures being proposed as Mr Turner said that his and his neighbours’ properties flood by an inch of water. Mr Hall responded that the officer’s report states that this could be secured by a condition and if they have to put in some more land drainage leading to the private ditch or a large soakaway they would agree to that via a condition.

·         Councillor Connor asked if Mr Hall had anything further to say.  Mr Hall responded that picking on what Councillor Johnson said about applications, this is the first application for the shed so there have been no refusals although there has been an appeal in relation to enforcement which was upheld.

 

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

·         Councillor Marks stated this is difficult as there are residents who have some issues but also somebody who has erected a shed for a purpose and is not running a business. He expressed the opinion that it cannot be seen from the roadway and can only seen by the five residents and by reducing this the Inspector said it will help three properties. Councillor Marks stated that he can see both sides, the security angle of having a steam engine and it being under cover but can equally understand the residents’ point of view. He feels the flooding issue is something that can be alleviated but is not convinced by ripping up some of the concrete is going to help matters, with it just creating more problems with dust and drainage.

·         Councillor Benney made the point that this is an application for a shed, this is the first application and there has been discussions about it being put up without permission but he was advised when he first came on committee that you do not need permission to build anything, you can put it up and if the Council do not like it they can make you take it down so, therefore, he does not see that the applicant has done anything wrong, although he might have circumvented some of the planning that should have been undertaken. He expressed the view that this is an application for a shed, with the shed being 28 metres away from the nearest building which makes it compliant and within the realms of planning. Councillor Benney stated the concrete is there for a purpose, the steam engine would not fit in the other three garages and as much as the residents have a right to the enjoyment of their land so does the applicant. He made the point that steam engines only come out on nice days and there is not a lot of noise from that. Councillor Benney stated there has been an appeal but the appeal was for what is there and this application is for what is proposed and it needs to be balanced as the applicant has a right to his enjoyment of his land.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough expressed the view that there has been a lot of discussion about what the building is used for, which to a large extent is irrelevant, as the concerns were about the overshadowing and loss of light but from the revised plan this does not seem to present an issue given the 28 metres distance.

·         Councillor Connor agreed with the comments of Councillor Benney, this steam engine will probably come out 3-4 times a year, it is a hobby and he is happy that almost 45% of the original building will be removed but is reticent to see the concrete being taken up as he cannot see why this needs to happen from a economic perspective as drains will need to be moved and no one else can see the vast amount of concrete that is there. He feels that the applicant felt this was what was needed to get the most enjoyment and it looks to him that there is a proper drainage system on site. Councillor Connor expressed the view that the applicant should enjoy his hobby and is going a long way towards making it an application that he can support. He notes the agent has said that a proper landscaping scheme can be submitted and he feels that would help with native large trees so the shed cannot be seen in a few years’ time. Councillor Connor stated that he does have some sympathy with the next-door neighbours but feels if this proposal is curtailed where does the applicant go as these large properties are brought for someone to enjoy their hobby and something of this value needs to be near.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees, she did not realise what hobby the applicant had and she does not think the shed looks finished but she is sure the applicant will put guttering up. She stated that she also agrees with not breaking up the concrete as that can do more damage and she will support the application.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that it is a shame that it has taken this long to get this before committee but the enforcement on it has moved at the “speed of light” as there is a building in a prominent place in one Fenland town that has bits falling off it and the committee has been pushing this for years to get enforcement action taken on it, referring to others in Wisbech and March. He feels if the enforcement had not been so quick on this site an application could have been submitted before it got to the point of going down this long and expensive route and resolved a lot sooner. Councillor Benney reminded committee that a balanced view is needed on making a decision, with there being a compromise here which goes a long way to addressing what the residents want and also gives the applicant the enjoyment of his land. He feels that the application should be approved, the size of the shed has been reduced and he hopes both parties can find some common ground and learn to live with each other.

·         Councillor Connor agreed that it should have been looked into 18 months ago and never got to this stage, it should have been a compromise where both parties could come to some common agreement. He stated that he will be supporting the application with the caveat that the concrete is left as it is as it will cause more trouble if it is broken up.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that the hardstanding cannot be regularised as it is because that is not part of the submission so irrespective of members’ position planning permission cannot be granted for something that is not part of an application. He added that each application or enforcement case is dealt with differently but as the agent has said this is the first application that the applicant has submitted and the applicant had an opportunity to submit an application, just like anyone would with an enforcement case, but this never happened so he does not think it is right to cast aspersion on the planning service for that situation. Matthew Leigh made the point that the enforcement notice was served and he accepts there was officer time and expense but that appeal was defended and the Inspector said the decision the Council made was correct. He added that looking at the planning history for the site this is the first application, the applicant did not submit an application previously and officers would have interacted with them and had conversations but nothing came forward so an enforcement notice was served which was successful at appeal.

·         Councillor Benney stated that his comments were not aimed at Matthew, who was not the Head of Planning at that time, he has come into this and like committee is picking up the pieces of it. He accepts there are mistakes and referred to Planning Inspector reports, one of which was an Inspector on a gypsy site in one part of Fenland who agreed with the appeal and another one threw the appeal out and it was more or less exactly the same application as there are difference of opinions as so much of it is subjective.

·         Councillor Marks made the point that this is the first application, had committee been presented with this today without seeing a whole big barn for hay and heard the different opposing arguments, would members have looked upon it favourably. He does not believe it is out of character where it is and on balance with the reduction he can support it, but does not feel the concrete breaking up should happen not due to cost but due to the issues it would present. 

·         Councillor Connor asked Matthew Leigh to clarify whether the concrete could be left as it is? Matthew Leigh stated that the application that has been submitted is for a certain level of hardstanding and permission cannot be granted for more than what has been submitted, which would be to retain hardstanding because retention is not development with the hardstanding that is there being unauthorised.

·         Councillor Marks asked if the hardstanding is left as it is would the applicant have to submit a separate application just for the hardstanding? Officers indicated in the affirmative.

·         Councillor Connor asked how much hardstanding would have to be taken up? Alan Davies responded that it amounts to 400 square metres, which is a third and was confirmed to be the green area on the plan.

·         Councillor Marks asked if the applicant could submit another application for that as hard standing? Officers clarified that was the case.

·         Councillor Connor summarised that if this application was granted today, the applicant could submit another application to retain the hardstanding and it would be determined either by the committee if it was not delegated for approval by officers.

·         Councillor Benney made the point that this application either needs approval or refusing as it is which is reducing the shed and taking the concrete up and any change would have to come back as a separate application.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that he does not like concrete and he is sure the applicant will come to some agreement as to the best way to alleviate the small flooding issue that the neighbour may have and, in his view, by having earth back there and grass and landscaping it will alleviate some potential of that flooding happening.

·         David Rowen referred back to Inspector’s decision which is a material consideration when determining future proposals on a site, with the Inspector being appointed by the Secretary of State, so it is a decision by the Secretary of State when an appeal decision is received. He stated that in this particular case the Inspector identified and stated that buildings of this design and scale would be part of the landscape and streetscape in many rural areas where their scale and design would be a typical part of a working agricultural landscape, however, in this location with its small scale field pattern and its location abutting residential gardens, the building scale and utilitarian design conflicts with the domestic and semi-rural nature of the area, although visibility of the building from the road and from further afield is limited it is prominent from the adjoining residential land. David Rowen added that the Inspector went on to say the substantial concrete hardstanding is also of a scale and character more akin to that of an industrial estate or a modern working farmyard despite its limited visibility from public areas it would be prominent from the upper floors of adjacent dwellings and harm the rural character of the area. He stated that as part of the officer’s report it has been identified that the potential changes to the building would perhaps overcome the relationships with 8, 8A and 8B but in relation to 10A and 10B the Inspector identified in relation to 10A that the building will be harmful to outlook despite the separation distance between the building and the rear of the dwelling and in terms of 10B it is harmful to outlook for occupiers of the dwelling notwithstanding the separation between the building and the rear of the dwelling. David Rowen continued that the Inspector also talked about providing landscaping with nature species suitable for a rural setting and sufficient to mitigate the effects of the scale of the building. He stated that in terms of members seeking to grant the application there are some issues that would need to be addressed in any proposal and in any reason for granting the application. 

·         The Legal Officer stated that he does not believe the Code of Conduct specifically addresses this precise scenario, but where there has been an effective refusal by the Council of planning permission in the sense that the Council served an enforcement notice with planning reasons why it should be refused and it has gone to appeal where the Inspector has endorsed that then great respect has to be accorded to that decision and the reasons for it albeit that this proposal is a smaller building than was intended. He added that members need to be mindful of the advice in the Code of Conduct.

·         Councillor Marks stated that his understanding is that this initial Inspector’s report was undertaken on what is seen on site today, which is not the application that is being determined as the scale is at least 45% less, with the hardstanding being a separate issue and it is a subjective view. The Legal Officer responded that it is correct that what is before members today is a smaller building and that has to be taken into account as well.

·         Alan Davies referred to the photo showing the view from 10B and stated that the biggest concern of this proposal was the impact on the amenity of the occupants of this property and once the northern part of this shed is demolished that view from 10B will not change. Councillor Benney disagreed as the impact will change as the building would be half the size it was. David Rowen made the point that the part of the building that is proposed to be removed is off the photo.

·         Councillor Imafidon made the point even with the impact of the change it is still 28 metres from the nearest building. Alan Davies stated that in terms of the rear elevation of 10B to the east elevation of the proposed shed it would be approximately 28 metres.

 

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions to include a landscaping scheme.

 

Members do not support officers’ recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel this is the first proposal considered by committee, there are two neighbours at variance and the proposal is a compromise between the two and whilst the Inspector’s report has been taken into account the appeal was dismissed for a larger scale building and a different proposal.

 

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

 

(Councillor Connor declared that he knows the applicant as he owns a scrap metal recycling yard and he used to own one but has since retired but he has never had any business dealings with him or socialised with the applicant. He further declared that he did meet with the applicant along with Councillor Marks on another matter that was not connected to any applications on the committee today. He stated that he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

 

(Councillor Marks declared that he met with the applicant once along with the Chairman but the meeting was not in relation to planning or planning issues and he does not know the applicant socially)

 

(Councillor Imafidon declared that the agent has undertaken work for him personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

 

(Councillor Sennitt Clough left the meeting after this application and was not present for the remaining items on the agenda)