Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Alexandra Patrick, the agent, read out by Member Services.  Ms Patrick stated that the application is for support for Mr and Mr Harrison to continue living on site, with the applicants being agricultural workers for local farmers, along with having their own business in agriculture that involves the orchard they live on, utilising fruit, the branches and logs of the apple tree.  She expressed the view that the applicants live a simple life with little luxury and it would have been detrimental to show the income of the business on this occasion.

Ms Patrick stated that the applicants could not be at the meeting today due to the stress and anxiety that this application has on them, she asked members not to think of this as ignorance as their mental health is at stake.  She made the point that the applicants have lived on the site for many years, applying for an agricultural building in 2007 for their machinery and tools as they continue to work in this domain.

Ms Patrick stated that the orchards on the land are maintained and utilised for the applicants own business to earn money and they also work to serve the farming community.  She expressed the view that there has been support of their activities on the site and proof of their existence in the support letters, with them being an asset to the community, and the application has had tremendous support from local residents and the Town Council, imploring members to approve the application on the grounds of exception circumstances.

Ms Patrick noted the Environment Agency’s objection to the application but expressed the view that the Council has approved mobile homes in and around the area, North Brink and Bevis Lane to name a few, which has set a precedence for this application, with the mobile homes set 500mm above ground level automatically aiding the flood measures.  She stated that a confidential statement accompanied the application detailing the turmoil the applicants have had to deal with in their farming journey and why they ended up residing on this site having previously lived in farm worker dwellings.

Ms Patrick expressed the opinion that, whilst the application may not comply with all legislation, it would not cause harm to the rural character to the locality given the positioning of the mobile homes and the current set up.  She stated that they would be happy to accept a condition of only “Mr and Mr Harrison to reside on site.  When the applicants cease to live there, the land will return back wholly to an agricultural orchard”, which, in her view, helps prove that the applicants do not wish for monetary gain but to continue their simple, humble life on the land as long as they live there.

Ms Patrick asked members to support the application given the nature of the site and its location along Lords Lane, where, in her opinion, dwellings in this area are sporadic and have mainly agricultural and forestry ties as does this application.

Members asked officers questions as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs Davis referred to the written representation mentioning two other sites that are occupied by mobile homes and asked if they are in Flood Zone 3?  David Rowen responded that without knowing the exact sites being quoted it is difficult to answer, but the only site he can think of on Bevis Lane may be a traveller’s site and detailed modelling on the site showed flooding not to be a significant risk.  He made the point that there are comments from the Environment Agency on this application raising concern that the site could be flooded up to depth of 1.6 metres.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked how long the applicants have been living on site in the existing buildings?  Alison Hoffman responded that the applicants have owned the site for 16 years but have lived on the site more recently but less than 10 years otherwise they would have been able to apply for a Certificate of Lawfulness.

·         Councillor Mrs French queried the planning permission given in 2007?  Alison Hoffman responded that this was a Prior Notification for the shed, but it was not built in accordance with the plans.  She stated that Prior Notification is to agree the principle of the building and officers’ comment on whether Prior Approval can be given, with the notification showing the building in one location but it was built it in another location.  Councillor Mrs French stated that they have owned the land for 16 years and reiterated the question asked by Councillor Mrs Davis on how long they have lived on the land in these caravans?

·         Councillor Sutton asked if the 10-year rule or 4-year rule for lawfulness applied to this site?  Nick Harding responded that there is no lawfulness proposal so members cannot have a meaningful debate on how long the applicants have been on site or not and there is no evidence to conclusively say how long the applicants have been on the site.  Councillor Sutton reiterated his question on whether the 10-year rule or 4-year rule applied?  Nick Harding responded that because it involves a mobile home it would be a 10-year rule, but from the recommendation it is not the shed but the residential element that is being refused.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked how long have the applicants have been on site, why has it taken so long for it to come to light and why has an application been submitted?  David Rowen responded that 9.2 of the officer’s report stated that the applicants have lived on site since 2016 and owned the site for 15 years so they have lived on site for five years.  He stated that enforcement have become aware of the site, which has resulted in the application, but the Council does not have the resources to go around every location in Fenland to see what has been undertaken without planning permission.  Councillor Mrs French asked if there is a date or year when enforcement first highlighted the issue?  Nick Harding responded that he does not have access to the case files so is not in a position to answer this.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the written representation which mentioned personal circumstances for the application which are confidential and whilst she acknowledged the need to comply with policies members need to be aware of the circumstances of them living on the site.  She made the point that if this application is refused, there will be enforcement action, which will put the applicants out of their home and this needs treating carefully and sympathetically.  Nick Harding stated that if someone has been residing at a location without the benefit of planning permission and receives a visit from an Enforcement Officer and are told they are occupying the land on an unauthorised basis and the advice given is that planning permission may be unlikely to be given, the persons involved might find that situation stressful and there is a distinction to be drawn from that as a stressful situation as opposed to somebody having health issues that lie outside that personal circumstances of living on a site on an unauthorised basis.  He made the point that should this application fail, the applicants would have a right of appeal and if an enforcement notice was served there is a right of appeal against this, so due process would have to be followed and if the enforcement process is instigated, officers would be aware of the potential homelessness situation and would give ample time for the applicants to find alternative accommodation. 

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if members are minded to approve the application could it be done on a temporary basis, such as two years, to give the applicants time to find suitable accommodation.  Nick Harding responded that his advice would be to go with the officer’s recommendation as officers have heard the views of Councillor Mrs French and would be mindful of giving that type of period for compliance with any enforcement notice should one be served.  Councillor Mrs French stated that she knows how many people are on the waiting list and how people are struggling, but the applicants currently have a roof over their head which might not be ideal.

·         Councillor Connor made the point that the applicants want to place better mobile homes on the site, which might not be viable if temporary permission is given.

·         Nick Harding advised that this is an open countryside location so national and Local Plan policy says that you cannot have a dwelling in this location unless in relation to agriculture or forestry, but an agricultural concern has to be a viable concern to support the household and it has not been demonstrated that a living can be made from this site.  He added that there are also flood risk issues with the site.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if the applicants are travellers?  David Rowen responded that the application is quite clear that the applicants do not fall within the definition of a traveller.

·         Councillor Marks asked if the age of the applicants was known?  Nick Harding responded that this is a not a material planning consideration.

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

·         Councillor Skoulding expressed the view that he can see why the applicants want to live on site as they have their equipment there and getting them stolen could ruin them.  He stated that he is leaning toward going against the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that it is a difficult decision as it is a heart against your head position.  He feels there are anomalies in what members are being told as it is being stated that the applicants did not know they needed planning permission which is contradicted by an application in 2007 on the site.  Councillor Sutton stated that if he was voting with his heart he would go against officer’s recommendation, but his head is telling him that members are not being told the whole truth.  He acknowledged that the report does state that officers have sympathy and empathy for the position the applicants are in, but he does not think he can support the application unless it was for a limited time.

·         Nick Harding asked what the objective would be in granting a temporary consent as in an agricultural dwelling you would only normally allow a temporary consent to allow the enterprise to demonstrate it is viable and to see what the performance of the enterprise has been in reality.  In this case, he stated that no financial evidence has been provided and given the limited size of the site he cannot see how it could be a going concern.

·         Councillor Mrs French questioned it was possible to defer the application for further information?

·         Councillor Sutton agreed with the comments of Nick Harding as he feels that the applicants could not prove they needed one dwelling on the site let alone two and if the committee support the officer’s recommendation is it within the committee’s gift to say that we appreciate the applicants need time to find alternative accommodation and put a time limit on the enforcement.  Councillor Connor stated that it has been intimated that enforcement could possibly take a couple of years anyway.  Councillor Mrs French said she would not want the enforcement action expediated.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the view that the point is being missed that the site is in Flood Risk Zone 3, with members talking about going against officer’s recommendation and placing 2 mobile homes on a Flood Risk Zone 3 site, which is against all policies. 

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that a temporary permission would give the applicants time to find somewhere else to live.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor referred to part of the application being retrospective and asked what part?  Alison Hoffman responded that the retrospective aspects are the agricultural buildings, hard standing and 3 caravans on the site, which are not in the best state of repair and it is the intention to replace these 3 with 2 new ones.

·         Nick Harding stated that it has been confirmed with the Case Officer that no health report was submitted with the planning application, which seems to suggest that the current stress being endured by the applicant is whether they are going to obtain planning permission.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that he has listened to the debate but feels that officers have got the recommendation correct.

Proposed by Councillor Miscandlon, seconded by Councillor Murphy and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillors Connor, Mrs Davis, Mrs French, Mrs Mayor, Murphy and Sutton registered, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on this application)

(Councillor Topgood left the meeting during the discussion on this application and was not present for the voting thereon.  He was absent for consideration of the remaining agenda items)