Agenda item

To determine the application

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the public Participation Procedure from Councillor Humphrey in support of the application.

Councillor Humphrey thanked the committee for allowing him to call the item in making the point that it is not often that he finds it necessary to call an item in, however, on this occasion there is information contained in the officer’s report to demonstrate that there is justification to support a dwelling for this established business in what is described as in elsewhere location.

He added that one of the difficulties with this type of business is that an application with a building of a workshop would not be supported in a residential area, however, the applicant has up to now been occupying the redundant farm buildings for many years but now wishes to expand his business and live there. Councillor Humphrey expressed the opinion that as a local authority we should be supporting the expansion of his business and referred to a similar site about a mile away where the business owner has expanded his garage business and is now able to live on site.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the public Participation Procedure from Mr Swann, the Agent.

Mr Swann stated that the application is before the committee at the request of Councillor Humphrey inhis capacity as Ward Councillor as, being familiar with the site and the business, he is able to verify the need for theproposal.

He explained that the original application was submitted via a different agent with very little justification for the proposal and was refused and Swann Edwards were since engaged to address the issues.

Mr Swann added that the first Swann Edwards application was refused with approximately 12 hours’ notice from the planning officer on the day the decision was due via anemail, stating that there was no justification for the proposal and it subsequently came to light that the officer was not even aware of the existenceof thespecialist report that was commissioned byCruso Wilkinto provide the business justification. He stated that he had been trying to communicate with the planning officer for 5 weeks without anyreply.

Mr Swann stated that the second application submitted, highlights the previous report and provides additional justification.

He expressed the view there are a number of discrepancies with this application and how it has been dealt with and he feels that the planning officer seems to be doing everything in order to refuse this application with no positive or proactive engagement from officers throughout the process and in his opinion inaccuracies in the committee report.

Mr Swann stated that Mr and Mrs Bassett are desperate to expand their successful rural business, but have been thwarted so far by delay after delay which is significantly affecting the future of their business which they have so much demand for. He added that Mr and Mrs Bassett operate an engineering business, which serves the farming community and they have machinery in the workshop to repair and havea 24hour aday callout serviceto visitfarms wherethe farmershave breakdowns at their farms, very often in the middle of fields,serving both the arable industry and livestock industry, therefore their quick response to problems is absolutelyessential.

Mr Swann expressed the opinion that despite the report, there is not open countryside surrounding the site with there being dwellings either side and behind, and only open views to the South.  He added that the officer also refers to this building as an existingformer agricultural building, however this has been operating as an engineering workshop since it was granted approval 26 yearsago.

Mr Swann referred to the reportstating thatthis applicationis fora dwellingwhich ‘alsoincludes’ a workshop extension and expressed the view that this is incorrect as this application is for both jointly as the business cannot expand without the workshop extension or the dwelling and it is essential for the future of thebusiness.

He stated that as of Monday, the highways officer had confirmed to both himself and the planning officer that they have no objections to the scheme and all previous issues can easily be dealt with via conditions.

Mr Swann added that there are no objections from any of the statutory consultees, however, there has been strange amount of correspondence from Cambridgeshire Constabulary and despite the proposal not changing since the original application in 2019, the Planning Officer felt it necessary to consult with the Police in June 2020. On 3 June the Police stated they supported the application, on 4 June there is another consultation that states that they only support part of the application without further information being provided and he questioned what had happened between these responses being a mystery. He referred to the officer’s report stating that the dwelling is not supported by Cambridgeshire Constabulary but in his view, nowhere in their responses does it state this and he has spoken to the Police yesterday and they have confirmed that they do not object and will be willing to assist in the next stage of the project.

Mr Swann referred to the report stating that there are ‘several letters of objection’ from the neighbour, however, on the portal there are 2 letters, one from Mr Johnson on 22 April and one from Mrs Johnson on 20 April, both of which are from the same address and the way in which these objections have been reported to the committee is different from other applications where the number of objections from separate addresses is usually reported.

He apologised for making a presentation of this nature but felt that on this occasion he had been left with no choice due to the distress caused to the applicants as a result of the way in which the application has been reported to them.

Mr Swann stated that the National Planning Policy Framework and the Core Strategy encourage Fenland District Council to support rural businesses and to work proactively with applicants jointly to find solutions which mean proposals can be approved where possible.

He stated that this proposal will ensure the future of this successful rural business it will allow the business to expand and remain competitive for years to come and allows the applicant the opportunity to continue tosupport dozens of other small rural businesses that are his clients, which without him, would not be able to operate in the manner which theydo currently and he asked the committee to support this application with the conditions that they deem appropriate.

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

·         Councillor Benney thanked Councillor Humphrey for calling the application in. He added that he visited the site and observed an old building on the land and expressed the opinion that as farms grow so does the size of the machinery and the buildings to store it with smaller buildings getting rented out for engineering works and  Fenland District Council should be supporting businesses. He stated that the workshop is intending to double in size and the applicant wishes to expand his business which is commendable in these times. Councillor Benney stated that the proposal is in a rural area and the Police response if required in a rural area will be very poor. He stated that the applicants business will be vulnerable and to keep it secure the application should be supported.

·         Councillor Lynn expressed the opinion that the applicant has a business that he wishes to develop and improve and for that reason he will be supporting this application. He added that the Agent appeared to raise concerns regarding the conduct of the officer, making the point that Agents and Developers should be aware and understand that officers have to follow guidelines and policies such as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Local Plan (LP) and as far as he is concerned, officers all work extremely hard and provide advice and guidance when asked and he does not agree with any attacks on officers.

·         Nick Harding highlighted the relevant paragraph of the NPPF when giving consideration to this application which states:  ‘Planning policies and decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one or more of the following circumstances apply: a) there is an essential need for a rural worker, including those taking majority control of a farm business, to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside’. He added that given that the business has been operational on the site for more than 20 years, officers do not see the need for a dwelling to be located on this site.

·         Nick Harding added that with regard to the adopted Local Plan policy, this location is not a settlement listed in the settlement hierarchy and that is why it is stated as being in an ‘elsewhere location’ in the countryside which states that ‘development will be restricted to that which will be demonstrably essential to the effective operation of local agriculture’ and there is nothing that states without a dwelling on that site this business cannot operate.

·         Nick Harding stated that the Police responded by stating that without further specific information they could not support the application as it stands but also stated that they will support the security fencing.

·         The Legal Officer, Stephen Turnbull advised members that they need to consider that there is a legal obligation to look at the development plan and there has to be compelling planning reasons to override what the plan states. He added that if any decision were to be challenged then the High Court might find a decision to be unlawful.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that in his capacity as Chairman, he feels that the Agent has been over critical of Officers on this application making the point that the Planning Department and the Planning Committee have worked tirelessly to keep planning applications and decisions moving forward, during the Covid 19 pandemic, which has proved to be a challenging time for everybody.

·         Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that he understands the need for farmers to live on site with farmers now working 24 hours a day and businesses need to respond to farmers in a timely fashion. He can understand the needs of the applicant and he will be supporting the application.

·         Councillor Hay stated she cannot see any good planning reason why this application should be approved as the business has been operating for 26 years and the applicant has had the opportunity to move closer to his business over the years as there have been large dwellings for sale over the last 2 or 3 years which he could have purchased to be nearer the business. She added that in the report the Highways Authority have stated that the northern access has not be approved by highways and needs to be removed or upgraded and they have also stated that the southern hedge impacts on visibility and amended plans will be required, but these have not been submitted. Councillor Hay added that the Police are stating that there is low level of crime in the area and they cannot support the application as it stands. She stated that the NPPF and the LP have to be adhered to and for that reason she will be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he understands the need of a workplace home and 24 hour access. He added that his vehicle will contain expensive equipment. Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that due to Covid 19, many people are now working at home and financially it works better for many businesses. He will be supporting this application.

·         Nick Harding stated that where an application is recommended for refusal officers would not normally ask for amended plans.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that the application site is slightly built up and the officer has adhered to the relevant policies and legislation and, therefore, the recommendation is correct. He stated that he would like to hear the views of Councillor Clark who is another Ward Councillor for the area.

·         Councillor Clark stated that she is not predetermined on the application and she expressed the opinion that she thinks is important to support rural businesses, especially agriculture.

·         Councillor Connor stated that local businesses need to be supported and he will be supporting this application.

·         Nick Harding stated that he has listened to the discussion and he added that he would like to highlight to members that there is no information to support that there is a security issue at present and nothing to suggest that the business cannot operate without the applicant living on site. He added that if members are minded to approve the application contrary to the officers recommendation, then he would ask that that officers are permitted to apply reasonable conditions to the application and it is important that the conditions include that there is no occupation of the dwelling until the workshop extension is completed and in an operational condition and secondly that the occupation of the house is tied to the operation of the workshop business.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that having listened to the views of Councillor Clark as one of the other Ward Councillors and all of the views of the other members of the committee, his view is that although it may not be essential,  it is a desirable dwelling and although crime has not be recorded locally, rural crime does exist.

·         Councillor Hay asked whether there will be a condition included to address the concerns raised by the Highways Authority. Nick Harding stated that before any consent is issued, the agent will be asked for amended plans and Highways will be asked to sign them off.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Lynn and decided that the application be APPROVED, against the officer’s recommendation.

Members approved the application against officer’s recommendation for the following reasons; They support the extension of a business in a rural location as it is desirable to live in close proximity. By living on site there will be no need for the applicant to travel to the workplace which in turn is beneficial to the environment.

It was decided that the conditions imposed on the planning permission be agreed in conjunction with the Chairman and Councillor Lynn and Councillor Sutton and to include the conditions that there will be no occupation of the dwelling until the workshop extension is completed and in an operational condition and secondly that the occupation of the house is tied to the operation of the workshop business.