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 Dave Bridges, the applicant, and Russell Swann, the agent.  Mr Bridges stated that he and his wife were both born and bred in the local area spending the first 20 years in March and the last 11 years in Doddington and love the villages of Doddington and Wimblington being keen to stay local.  He stated that his 3 children are at the local school and he and his wife are on local charitable committees.

Mr Bridges stated that they have been looking to move, whilst staying in the village, for 3 years but cannot find any properties within their budget for their family’s needs.  He explained the site forms part of a larger farm owned and run by his father-in-law, with the 3-acre corner field being of low-grade agricultural soil and with fertiliser costs tripling this year it is non-feasible to farm in the current market.

Mr Bridges expressed the opinion that a single-family home would help off-set these losses, with the corner chosen for agricultural reasons so tractors can still access the other part of the farm.  He stated that the home will be built set back from the road, with the hedgerow replanted further back to allow visibility and passing along Blue Lane, which, in his view, will improve safety.

Mr Bridges advised members that he runs a local fire and security business which employs 11 people in highly skilled and highly paid jobs, which, in his opinion, is of great benefit to the local area and is the only approved firm in Fenland.  He stated that they have a small retail unit in Whittlesey which is used as their operation but need a workshop that can be accessed 24/7 for the assembly of control equipment and transmission devices, with the devices needing to be preconfigured prior to being delivered on site and the application site is perfect as there is an 800 metre line of sight to his father-in-law’s sheds and, therefore, he can set up and use these long distance transmission devices, which will result in the increase of the products he can offer and in turn employ and train more local people.

Mr Bridges expressed the view that this development is essential in providing his family with a quality home, whilst improving additional jobs in the area.

Mr Swann stated that the application is before committee due to the level of support received and the site is currently a small triangular grade 3 piece of agricultural land, which has been owned by Mr Bridges for many years, has not been farmed and is on the edge of the built form of Wimblington.  He referred to the Planning Officer comments within the report that state the site is located in an elsewhere location but expressed the opinion that LP3 classifies Wimblington as a growth village and this site is opposite Coney Walk estate and adjacent to residential properties further along Blue Lane.

Mr Swann made the point that there is a planning application pending consideration on the land immediately to the south of the site for a new car park and 2 metre high fence extending Knowles Transport to the boundary of this property.  He stated that the site lies within Flood Zone 1 demonstrating a profitable location for a new workshop and dwelling under the Local Plan.

Mr Swann expressed the view that the site lies just outside the speed limit signs and Highways have indicated that there would be no objection to the proposal as long as the boundary hedge is trimmed, which they would be happy to be conditioned.  He stated that the proposed widening of the road at this location will also, in his view, benefit the wider community.

Mr Swann expressed the opinion that the proposal complies with the NPPF and Local Plan and ensures the proposal is consistent with other recent approvals.  He stated that Mr Bridges’ is preparing his business for the future in order to plan for the economic instability that we have all be warned about and are beginning to see with the cost of living and energy crisis.

Mr Swann feels that businesses like this need to be helped to ride the wave and survive into the future as they are the future of Fenland.  He reiterated that the proposal is adjacent the built form, within a growth village, on grade 3 agricultural land that will never be used for agricultural purposes especially if the car park for Knowles is approved land locking the site, there have been no objections from Highways and the site is in Flood Zone 1.  He asked members to support this small business and approve the application with conditions deemed appropriate.

Members asked questions of Mr Bridges and Mr Swann as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked, when Highways say the entrance is acceptable as long as the hedgerow is cut back, who owns the next part of the field along where these bushes are?  Mr Bridges responded that the whole field along there is owned by his father-in-law and would be maintained.

·         Councillor Benney asked how many people were employed at present and how many additional jobs would the proposal bring forward?  Mr Bridges responded that he currently employs 11 people and the scheme will help increase the services it offers and it will be around 2-3 new employers per year.

·         Councillor Cornwell questioned what is effectively being applied for is a workplace home as a business will be carried out on part of the site?  Mr Bridges confirmed this to be correct, with the workshop used mainly for construction of plant equipment and testing.

·         Councillor Sutton asked for the potential car park to be shown to him again and officers displayed a plan showing the location on the presentation screen.  Councillor Sutton expressed the view that the workshop does not look much bigger than a double garage.  Mr Swann responded that this is an outline application at the moment so all these matters are reserved and these elements will be designed to Mr Bridges needs at the time and if the committee wanted to see the Reserved Matters application they would be happy for this to come before members.

·         Councillor Purser stated that Wimblington is not a high crime area but is part of living on site providing security for the business as well?  Mr Bridges responded that as an accredited firm a lot of the work he does has to be controlled, and with the workshop anything preconfigured would be kept secure until it is despatched to site and it is essential to be near this equipment.

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

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that the committee is looking at an outline application consisting of a dwelling with a garage/workshop which would appear to be an essential element of what the applicant needs, so this is a business use and members need to consider how this complies with the rest of the area.  He made the point that Blue Lane is not very wide and there is a balance between the residential side of the application with the business side and questioned whether the committee was able to do this.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the committee needs to look at what is front of them, which is an application for a residential unit and a unit in connection with the applicant’s business, so consideration is required of both elements.

·         David Rowen stated that the application as submitted is for a dwelling and workshop/garage, with the supporting information indicating that it is in connection with a business, however, if you were more typically looking at a workplace home you would expect the workplace element to be made more prominent in the submission and the building is talked about as a garage/workshop as opposed to being a commercial building within a particular use class, which does give the impression that its more low key than is being reported by the two speakers.  He quoted part of the Design and Access Statement submitted with the application, which states “the garage/workshop will only accommodate a single worker, therefore, will not generate a significant amount of noise”, and there are similar references within this document, which reiterates the almost low key, working from home, spilt between domestic and a small element of commercial but nothing significant whereas what has been heard from the speakers is that this is going to be a more intense commercial use on site referring to line of sight with adjacent properties which will allow trade to take place and the potential for additional people to be employed, which is somewhat different to what is stated within the application.  David Rowen expressed the opinion that from a highway perspective he is not sure they have commented on a more intense commercial use but on a proposal for a dwelling with a garage/workshop.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that when he saw the proposal contained a garage/workshop he was thinking more of a domestic workshop, but from the presentation this is coming over differently and brings a few question marks into his thinking.  He feels it is raising more questions as he thinks members are now considering a business use rather a fully domestic use.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis agreed with Councillor Cornwell, initially when you look at the application you are thinking in terms of a house with a small workshop.  She stated that the site’s position is out in the open countryside and is on quite a dangerous bend and if the idea is to make this more of a business there will be different vehicles entering and exiting the site and Highway comments are not related to a larger business but a house with a small workshop.  She feels if the applicant is definitely going to make this a bigger business and that the application should possibly be deferred and a better application submitted.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor expressed concern over the highway issue, with the Parish Council objecting on highway grounds, which she believes is correct.  She stated that Councillor Mrs Davis knows the area better than most and Highways did comment that the site was on a dangerous bend.

·         Councillor Sutton agreed with comments of other speakers that is why he questioned the size of the garage/workshop as he could not weigh up how it was much different to a decent double garage.  He stated that if he had access to that bit of land and could place a house anywhere he chose it would certainly not have been in the corner where it is being proposed, he would have positioned it closer to the houses opposite it and had the house been in this position he might have had a different opinion but he expressed the view that he could not support the application as it stands as there are too many questions unanswered.  Councillor Sutton stated that although the Council wants to support business it cannot be at the expense of everything else and the proposal does raise far more questions than answers.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that he does not think committee should defer the application, it should either be granted or refused.  He made the point that the applicant has another chance to submit an application taking into consideration the committee’s points if it is refused.

·         Councillor Benney agreed with the comments of Councillor Mrs Davis and others, particularly with the siting of it and putting in a better access point that would lead to the house.  He made the point that if the application is deferred it is just put back but if refused it can be re-submitted as a free go.

·         David Rowen made the point that with a free submission there are certain criteria around that, such as the same application site and same character of development, and urged members to be cautious in suggesting that a free resubmission would be available.

·         Councillor Sutton made the point that a free application has to be where the red line is, but he feels it cannot be approved as it is.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that there is a business here that the Council should be supporting but he feels the access is not the best for this site and the committee has given the applicant a bit of a steer as to where a different application could be supported.  He feels that there is not enough information, which is a problem with an outline application, and a full application showing the workshop and in line with the proposed use would give members a more informed decision.

·         David Rowen again expressed caution in members being too proactive on what may or may not be acceptable in terms of different access positions or siting as any future application needs to be considered on its merits and needs to go through the relevant consultation with consultees, such as the Highways Authority.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has visited the site and the bend was, in her view, bad.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Mrs Davis and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Mrs Davis registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is Chairman of Wimblington Parish Council but takes no part in planning)