Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alan Davies presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent, and Rachel Sharman, the applicant. Mr Hall explained that the application was deferred from the meeting in May as a result of the committee requesting further details concerning business accounts, details of who was going to reside in the proposed dwelling and provision of a business plan. He added that the requests of members have been considered and that information has been provided to officers which has included four years of accounts for the business which has been established since 1988.

Mr Hall explained that it will be members of the Sharman family who are employed in the business that will be living in the occupational dwelling if it is granted and all members of the family have been involved with the design of the dwelling. He added that the applicant prepared a business plan to give a history of the business and the proposal going forward together with security and he explained that there are no objections to the application, and all the consultees support the application.

Mr Hall made the point that he gave an overview of the business at the Planning Committee in May which includes out of hours working on heavy good vehicles (HGV), trailers, play equipment, gates, structural steel work as well as expanding into shop blasting and powder coating. He explained that a lot of this work can be undertaken out of hours and also at weekends and all of the work does require bulk buying which is in the business plan and all the material are left on site.

Mr Hall explained that the business has been located at the site for over 20 years and is, therefore, not a new business. He added that it wishes to stay and expand at the location with an occupational dwelling and a further shed on the site for the Sharman family and their business.

Members asked the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks stated that he welcomes the fact that a business is trying to expand and he added that officers have explained that the business does not receive deliveries out of hours. He added that HGV owners often require their vehicles to be worked on out of hours and he questioned whether the business has a contract in place to work on HGV vehicles out of hours? Ms Sharman explained that most of the businesses customers with HGVs require works to be undertaken out of hours because they work during the day and require repairs to be undertaken out of hours.

·         Councillor Marks stated that officers have explained that the family currently reside 3 minutes’ drive away from the application site and he questioned whether Ms Sharman parks her car in a garage. Ms Sharman stated that she does not. Councillor Marks made the point that the 3 minutes travel time is on a day where the weather is good and he added that should the weather be cold and frosty, in his view, that journey could take up to 10 minutes. Ms Sharman agreed, it would take longer due to having to defrost the car prior to travelling to the site.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he presumes that at the site there are trailers and other equipment? Ms Sharman explained that as well as trailers, there are also forklifts and tractors on site along with other valuable equipment and it is a concern.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked officers to confirm that the 3 minutes travel time which he is presuming has been gauged in the Summer months as opposed to the Winter months when that travel time will be different. Alan Davies explained that the point made with regards to 3 minutes is based on the distance of 0.6 miles from the site and if there are other factors such as travelling during the day, heavy traffic then the 3 minutes travel time from the applicant’s home to the site would alter. He added that members do need to consider that the applicant’s current home is close to the applicant’s workshop.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to 3.6 of the report where it refers to the proximity of the A141 and the fact that it is not necessarily rural and as a result the site is not at any enhanced security risk. She expressed the view that it does not actually enhance the security at all and is likely to detract from it as it is a road where potentially people could just make off quickly and she asked officers for their view? Alan Davies stated that with regards to security of dwellings, the general guidance either in planning policy or from the Police crime prevention design advisors is that properties are best located in areas which have natural surveillance, such as vehicles or people walking or driving past. He added that when considering the application there is the Isle of Ely Way, A141, which is a busy road and means that the site itself has a high level of natural surveillance and has numerous vehicles who use the road. Alan Davies added that should something take place on the site then there is a high chance of somebody witnessing any incident, however, it is only guidance, and nothing is set in stone. He explained that there may be situations and circumstances whereby having a busy road located nearby does not necessarily help when considering natural surveillance as there maybe hedges which obscure and, in this case, it is deemed that the site is reasonably visible and can be seen by motorist driving past.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that whilst she appreciates the explanation she does not concur with the views of officers as when driving along the A141 she is concentrating on the road and not the surrounding properties.

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

·         Councillor Marks stated that Councillor Sennitt Clough has made a good point, the A141 along there is 50mph and, in his view, at 2.00am, you are more interested in getting to your destination rather than looking to see whether a burglary is taking place and he disagrees with the point made by officers with regards to site security being aided by the roadside. He stated that he also has an engineering company, he works out of hours which, in his view, is excellent and he would love to be able to work on site in a workplace home, with the applicant also working out of hours and, in his view, you do not want to be inconvenienced to have to travel home periodically for short periods of time and to be able to live on site is the way businesses should be able to operate with a home on site. Councillor Marks added that it gives site security, which is very much needed, and he feels that the 3 minute figure to drive to the site should actually be 10 minutes and in such a short space of time a lot can happen, and tools and trailers can go missing. He expressed the opinion that he does not see any harm by erecting the dwelling as it will provide somebody an extra half an hour a day by being on site which he believes is a financial benefit as it is two and a half extra hours a week working without the need to travel backwards and forwards. Councillor Marks added that the applicant will also save money by not having to travel backwards and forwards as well as helping to be more environmentally friendly and he will wholeheartedly support the application.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the Council uses the strapline that Fenland is Open for Business and, in his view, the application should be supported, with the business having been operating for 20 years and when the application came before the committee in May, it was deferred to give the applicant the opportunity to answer three questions, and the agent and applicant have provided the information. He expressed the opinion that anybody who wishes to put a house and another building as well as employing other people in the current uncertain world are very brave people and feels that this type of application should be supported and the Council should be looking to set aspirations at a higher level. Councillor Connor added that this type of business starts off by employing a small number of people and then increases that number, making the point that looking forwards, the business owner may look to expand further and may wish in the future to add a further building and employ further staff, which is what Fenland wants to see, and he is in total support of the application. He explained that he used to have a business, he did not live on site but once the night watchman lived on site it meant that it stopped 99% of any thefts and feels that to have somebody living on the site is the best deterrent.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he agrees with the points made by Councillor Connor, and he added that there have been several local businesses who have suffered from thefts over recent weeks, with CCTV only demonstrating what has happened and does not stop incidents from taking place. He stated that he was one of the members who requested the deferment previously as he does not know the applicant or the family and he had no proof that there was a business on the site and this additional information has now been submitted. Councillor Benney added that as a result of thefts businesses cannot work for a period of time until the equipment which has been stolen is replaced and security is a very large consideration. He expressed the view that anybody who is looking to invest money in any kind of business and in the current climate should be fully supported and as a Council he believes that is what should be happening.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the committee have also in the past given permission for another carpentry business to have a workplace dwelling on their site to assist with security. He added that he also recalls that a second property was also given planning permission and, therefore, the committee need to be consistent with their decisions making.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he recalls the committee also approved two applications in Manea and the committee need to be consistent.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that the officers report refers to the proposal failing under LP12 of Local Plan when considering the need and, in her view, the need has been demonstrated both in the members debate and from the agent and applicants’ presentation.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with the views of Councillors Marks and Benney as she is aware that there are local businesses who have suffered from break ins over the last few weeks. She added that she agrees that if you live on site, it is far more beneficial, and she will support the application.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation with delegation given to officers to finalise the conditions in consultation with the Chairman, proposer and seconder.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel the application should be approved on security and economic growth grounds, they do not feel that the dwelling will be detrimental or look out of place and that going forward applications such as this should be approved as Fenland is Open for Business, and this is a 24 hour out of hours business, which is in the correct location. 

(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)

(Councillor Gerstner left the meeting following the determination of this item)