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 George Boreham, speaking on behalf of the agent.  Mr Boreham stated that the majority of the letters of support for this application are from people who live in the road, with the remainder from Doddington, which, in his view, shows local support.  He made the point that one of the supporters is Mega Plants which is a business along this road and that all consultees support the application, with no objections.

Mr Boreham acknowledged that the site is in Flood Zone 3, however, mitigation measures have been proposed in the independent Flood Risk Assessment, which has been approved by the Environment Agency.  He stated that the site has had an approval for a residential dwelling for change of use of the existing barn in 2015, with previous approvals allowing the setting of the caravan on the site.

Mr Boreham referred to there being no objections from County Council Highways and an application submitted by Mega Plants will provide passing bays, which will further improve Hospital Road.  He stated that the applicant has lived on site for almost 9 years in the mobile home as well as running a business for the same period of time and during this time he has paid Council and Middle Level drainage charges.

Mr Boreham stated the applicant buys, sells and repairs various machinery and tools and the containers and the shed on site are for equipment and used as a workshop.  He advised that the applicant has been broken into 4 times, with tools and equipment having been stolen.

Mr Boreham stated that the proposal is for a dwelling on site to allow the removal of the mobile home, the dwelling has approved mitigation measures by the Environment Agency and is safer living accommodation than the mobile home.  He expressed the opinion that having a permanent dwelling on site will also aid security and the removal of the mobile home will improve the character of the area.

Mr Boreham reiterated that there is local support for this proposal and from Doddington Parish Council and, in his view, there are no concerns raised about the design, size or neighbouring amenity, with the application being for the running of a local business on a site which has previous planning approvals for a residential barn conversion which would have allowed a residential property on the site.  He stated the business has been running for almost 9 years from this site and is established within the existing barn.

Mr Boreham requested members support this proposal for a local business.

Members asked questions of Mr Boreham as follows:

·         Councillor Benney referred to the fact that it was said the applicant has been paying Council Tax and queried whether also business rates applied to the property?  Mr Boreham responded that as far as he is aware Council Tax has been paid but he is unsure regarding business rates.  Councillor Benney asked if it an agricultural business that he runs from the site?  Mr Boreham responded that he was unsure.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked how long the mobile home had been on the site, she has heard 9 years, and also in 2015 there was an approved application?  David Rowen responded that as set out in the history section of the report there have been previous approvals on the site for a mobile home on a temporary basis for agricultural workers and those permissions elapsed in 2014 so the mobile home has been on site since 2014 without permission.  In terms of the residential use of the site, he stated that in 2015 there was a Prior Notification submitted for the conversion of the most substantial building under Class Q and that was approved at that time, however, that has not been implemented or the works have not been completed within the requisite time and whilst there was a resubmission of that application in 2018 it transpired that the building was not being used for agricultural purposes and, therefore, does not qualify as a Class Q conversion.  David Rowen stated that as it stands there is no extant approval for residential on the site.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to Councillor Benney’s question regarding the use and asked if officers know what the use is if it is not agricultural?  David Rowen responded that it is officers understanding that it is a B8 storage use and as Mr Boreham indicated in his presentation the applicant operates a buying, selling and refurbishment of equipment and machinery business.  Councillor Mrs French asked whether it is agricultural machinery?  David Rowen responded that whether it is agricultural machinery is not an agricultural use but the maintenance and refurbishment of machinery.

·         Councillor Benney asked if it known whether Council Tax has been paid on this site as residential and if so for how long?  David Rowen responded that it his understanding that Council Tax has been paid since 2014 but he is not aware of whether any business rates have been paid.

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

·         Councillor Sutton referred to the long history of temporary permissions on the mobile home which ran out in 2014 and that temporary permission was for pheasant breeding at the time which has ceased to exist and the new use does not seem to be agriculture.  He stated that it has been confirmed that the mobile home is being lived in without planning permission and his view would have been favourable if it had had extant permission to replace the mobile home with a dwelling but, in his opinion, members should not be giving permission to replace something that does not have permission.  Councillor Sutton believes the officer’s recommendation to be correct.

·         Councillor Murphy agreed with the comments of Councillor Sutton.  He feels that this proposal is going from a caravan to “Southfork” and feels members are being misled.

·         Councillor Benney stated that there is a mobile home on the site that has been there since 2014, it does have extant permission on it but it has not been followed up by enforcement to remove it.  He referred to a similar case at Guyhirn where there was a mobile home with people living in it and permission was given in this instance.  Councillor Benney made the point that there is a business on this site, Council Tax has been paid, no enforcement has been undertaken and a house on this site would be better than leaving a caravan here.  He feels the principle of residential use was approved in the barn conversion, with the barn not being a quaint old one, but a standard agricultural building.  Councillor Benney stated that he is inclined to support the application as a house would be better to live in than a mobile home and allow this business to flourish.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether the applicant could have applied for a Certificate of Lawful Use?  David Rowen responded that the residential use of the site would not be lawful at this point of time as it has not been there for the requisite period of time.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the view that Council Tax has been taken off the applicant, planning permission was approved a few years ago for a barn conversion with the applicant perhaps not being in a financial position to undertake the works and members need to ask themselves if Fenland open for business or not.  He made the point that the country has been through Covid and the applicant has still paid his Council Tax and carried on his business.  Councillor Connor stated that whilst he sympathises with officers and their position, Fenland is open for business and, in his view, the applicant should be given a chance, there are houses further along Hospital Road, one next door and four approved at the top of the road, with Mega Plants just getting permission for a café and he will go against officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor expressed concern, not with the fact that the Council has already approved properties along Hospital Road, but whether a business is being run on the site or not or is the property just going to be built as one in the countryside.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the description of the application which does not refer to the running of a business at this location.

·         Councillor Cornwell expressed the opinion that members were wandering off the subject as the documents do not mention the business, this is an application to replace the mobile home, that seems not to have permission in the first place, with a large house and a decision is required on what the officer’s report says.

David Rowen explained that the application is not for the retention of the business and the area where the business takes place is not within the red line boundary of the application site.  He stated that the comments made about the application being purely for a dwelling are correct, the business element is coming mainly through the applicant’s submission that effectively the dwelling is required in connection with the business.

David Rowen made the point that the payment of Council Tax is not a material planning consideration in determining this application and does not have any bearing as to whether the residential use of the site is lawful or not.  In reference to comments made by Councillor Benney regarding previous decisions the committee has made relating to replacement of mobile homes, he stated that to the best of his knowledge the ones that have been brought in front of the committee and been granted by members have always had a lawful residential use on the site, which is not the case here.  David Rowen referred to the residential approval that was on the site in 2015, the change of use of the building under Class Q Agricultural Buildings to residential under permitted development rights is a very different issue from a policy point of view than the erection of a new build dwelling on the site and should not set a precedent for the erection of a new dwelling on land adjacent to those buildings.  As it stands at the moment that building would not now be allowed to be converted as it is no longer an agricultural building and no longer qualifies under Class Q and this should not be something that members should base their decision on regarding this application, it is a case of what the application is and compliance with policies both nationally and locally.

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

(Councillor Benney declared that he knows Matthew Hall, the agent for this application, he has undertaken work for him and is doing work for Chatteris Town Council which he is involved with)

(Councillors Connor and Mrs Davis registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they attend Doddington Parish Council meetings but take no part in planning)