Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor John Clark, in support of the application.

Councillor Clark informed members that he has known the applicant’s family for many years and they are a local March born and bred family, adding that he has no pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest with the application or with the applicant. He stated that Mr Purse is a ground worker and is looking for somewhere secure to store his plant equipment and machinery, with the first thing that will be implemented prior to construction of a property is the groundworks to add the services.

Councillor Clark stated that he knows the site very well, as it is in his Ward, and he has received no complaints about the site and does not anticipate any if the application is approved.  He expressed the view that when you start a new business, it is very difficult to find suitable and appropriate accommodation to store equipment.

Councillor Clark stated that opposite Silt Road at 107 Upwell Road, members may recall a historic groundworks business which was operated with no problems that he is aware of and that business has not operated for several years since the owner passed away. He stated that the application before members could be seen as a replacement and added that recently planning permission was given to a business to operate at Whitegates Corner, who operate machinery with no issues or concerns either. He asked the committee to support the application with local knowledge he has afforded them.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Lee Bevens, the agent.

Mr Bevens stated that members will note from the officer’s report the area where the proposed storage building issituated goes back to 2016 and what has not been helpful is that previous applications have looked to changethe landuse. He added that the proposed storage shed is to be used as ancillary use for the applicant’s recentlyextended and approved bungalow, known as Meadowcroft and the associated detached   garage.

Mr Bevens stated that it is not intended that the storage shed will be used for any Class B use and it is certainly not hisclient’s intention to use it for anything other than to create secure storage for his machinery  associated with his ground working business and separate machinery accumulated fromhobbies, including a vintage tractor, horse box, carts and straw and hay relating totheir horsepassion. He stated that his client looked long and hard for suitable sites in March and the surrounding areas where  he relocate to and store his machinery without general nuisance anddisturbance andthis sitefits thatdescription and there wereno othersuitable propertiesor  sites.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that the client has invested a large sum of money in the extensions and alterations to the former  bungalow, known as Meadowcroft, following a successful decision in 2018 and the vastmajority of the works have been completed with the triple garage block currently beingcompleted onsite. He explained that having reviewed the previous applications and looked at the reasons for previous refusals, he has prepared site section drawings to show that the building will not stand out in thelandscape despite its modest height increase.

Mr Bevens expressed the opinion that the site is well screened from long views into the site by the railway embankment to the east and the existing trees screen on the northand easternboundaries. He added that the building is only some 2.7m higher than the railway line with a grey roof to help blend in  with the skyline, and whilst the bulk of the external cladding is proposed to be green to reflectthe existingtrees nearthe site, additionallandscaping isproposed tothe westernboundary  to help screen the site from Silt Road and with the combination of existing hedge planting,the triple garage and the existing dwelling at Meadowcroft, there will be very little view ofthe proposedstorage building.

Mr Bevens stated that he disagrees with the officer’s suggestion that the storage shed is an ‘alien feature’ in atranquil rural setting and added that the site lies next to the main railway line to the east, which is due to  beexpanded withmore trainuse andcontinued freightuse. He explained that Fenland is well known for its agriculture and agricultural sheds located in the opencountryside and this building was designed to be fit for purpose and not trying to disguise it.

Mr Bevens that there were earlier conversations with the Council about domesticating the building, which, in his view, would havebeen wrong and if the building is set some 42m from the nearest window of Medway Cottage and the heightof the building is no higher than a typical bungalow, he does not see how the scale has thepotential to result in significant disturbance to the amenity of Medway Cottage. He added that the Town Council support the application and the application has been submitted with alarge numberof lettersof supportfrom nearbyresidents andonly 1letter ofobjection from the owner of Medway Cottage, who does not live at the address, but some distance awayand to the best of his knowledge the current tenant has not raised any objections to theproposal.

Mr Bevens stated that the applicant is happy to have appropriately worded conditions on the application,regarding landscaping and use of the building, to provide comfort to members asappropriate and once again noting that the building is for the storage of vehicles andmachinery associatedwith theapplicants personaluse andhis business,which hedoes not  run from the address.

Members asked Mr Bevens the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that this is an area where there are similar buildings throughout the area, and she does not have any concerns with the proposal.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that the committee approved a similar proposal on the bypass for the rose growers and that was against the officer’s recommendation for refusal. He added that the building does not stick out and has blended into the countryside and is no different from any other farm buildings. Councillor Miscandlon stated that JCB equipment is very costly to replace and he would not like to see the applicant to suffer any loss. He added that he will support the application.

·         Councillor Meekins asked Mr Bevens to clarify whether the application is going to be used for the applicant’s business? Mr Bevens clarified that his client has ground working equipment, which are associated with his business, but there is not a business operating from the site and it is solely to be used for storage in a secure premise. Councillor Meekins asked whether the yard at the application site is already being used to store his equipment? Mr Bevens stated that there is already equipment on site and also equipment associated with the build of the garage and the recent extension to Meadowcroft and as far as he is aware there has only been the one letter of objection, which is the owner of Medway Cottage.

·         Councillor Murphy asked for clarity with regard to the temporary mobile home and stated that permission was refused in 2017 and questioned why it was still there and whether it was being lived in? Mr Bevens stated that he cannot comment on the mobile home as he was unaware of its status.

·         Nick Harding stated that Mr Bevens has stated that a business will not be operating from the site and has advised members that the description of the application proposal is incorrect, however, if there is storage of commercial groundworks equipment then there is the introduction of a commercial use into the location. He added that storage of plant machinery that is used for groundworks is a commercial use and the administration side of the operation can take place in the residential property next door. Nick Harding clarified that the application site does not have the benefit of domestic use on it so a change of use is also involved.

·         Councillor Marks asked for clarity with regard to the storage of vintage tractors on site and added that if it was only personal possessions being stored on site and not equipment associated with the business, would it make a difference? Nick Harding stated that it would be irrelevant as Mr Bevens has made it clear that the site is for the use of plant and machinery for commercial use. Councillor Marks stated if the applicant chose only to store the personal equipment would it make a difference? Nick Harding stated that then an application would be required to construct the barn in question and undertake hard standings and if the use of the land and building was primarily associated with the residential use of the property next door, a residential use of the site would need to be applied for.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that it is her understanding that the vehicles have been on site for a few years. David Rowen stated that a great deal of the activity currently taking place on the site is unauthorised and does not have planning permission. He added that this is something that the Council’s Enforcement Team has been aware of, however, due to the renovations that are taking place next door at Meadowcroft, it has been made serving a notice challenging due to trying to ascertain what equipment is needed for the works for the property and differentiating what equipment is there in a commercial basis. He added that once the works to Meadowcroft are completed, it will be easier to serve a precise Enforcement Notice which will be far clearer.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that, in her opinion, the site currently is an absolute mess and she is aware of the frequency of plant equipment being stolen.  She feels that if approved the site would be cleaned up and there is the need to support local businesses.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he concurs with Councillor Mrs French and added that new businesses are finding it very difficult to find secure premises. He added that he will be fully supporting the application.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the applicant should be fully supported and he needs to look after his property. He added he does not feel it will be detrimental to the area and it will blend into the area.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the applicant should be supported. The site is out of the way, will not interfere with anybody and she will support the proposal.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that the equipment is expensive and needs to be kept safe and secure and she will be going against the officer’s recommendation and will be supporting the application.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that the application has been before the committee previously and on both occasions, he voted against the application. He added that he is now aware that another application for a barn in Coleseed Road was approved under delegated officer’s powers and had he known that previously he may have voted differently. Councillor Sutton referred to another application, which has been approved out of the village of Manea and, therefore, he is now minded to approve the application against the officer’s recommendation.

·         David Rowen stated that the application before members does differ from that on Coleseed Road. He added that a great deal of what is already on site is unauthorised and if members were to give weight by granting planning permission to tidy up a site, it would set a dangerous precedent. David Rowen stated that although the appearance of the proposal is similar to a barn, its overall use is not and he referred members to LP3 of the Fenland Local Plan and added that he is not sure how the application fits with that element of the Local Plan. David Rowen referred to the issue of crime and stated that it is not uncommon for plant equipment to be stolen from building sites, however, a building in this location will not necessarily stop the issue of theft.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation, with the conditions imposed on the planning permission to be agreed in conjunction with the Chairman, Councillor Mrs French, and Councillor Benney.

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the application does not adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties, is not out of character with the open countryside and the proposal has also incorporated appropriate security measures to deter crime and be a safe environment.

(Councillor Purser declared an interest in this item, as the applicant is known to him, and he took no part in the discussion on this application and voting thereon)