Agenda item

To determine the application.

The appendix to this report comprises EXEMPT INFORMATION which is not for publication by virtue of Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended)

Theresa Nicholl presented the report to members and drew attention to the update that had been circulated.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Andy Brand, an objector. Mr Brand stated that together with his wife and four daughters he lives at 5 Askham Row, which, in his view, is the property that is most impacted by this retrospective planning application. He stated that both himself and his wife are Town Planners and have both worked for Fenland District Council, with his wife currently validating planning applications for the Council but does not have any decision-making functions in the planning department. He stated that he has also been appointed recently as a project manager for the Doddington Neighbourhood Plan Group, which is seeking to promote sustainable development whilst protecting the character of the village and considers that he is well placed to comment on planning policy matters.

Mr Brand expressed the opinion that the drawings submitted with the application are not correct in terms of the land to the east and the west and that plan also references to the north Megaplants but that business is actually located approximately 400 metres to the north. He feels the proposal clearly conflicts with an important principle of planning policy, protection of the countryside from uncharacteristic and unnecessary development, with that policy position sets out in paragraph 3.11 of the adopted Local Plan and paragraph 174 of the NPPF, with this presumption against the proposal development applying in full against this planning application.

Mr Brand expressed the view that this proposal is unnecessary in the context of Local Plan Policy LP3 and alleged biodiversity benefits cannot be given weight in favour of the proposal as those works themselves do not require planning permission. He feels the officers have correctly drawn to the committee’s attention an appeal in Coates where a similar proposal was dismissed on the very same basis of the harm caused by this proposal, with the Coates appeal site being around one fifth of the size of this planning application so the impact would be greater in this proposal.

Mr Brand expressed the view that planning law requires decisions taken in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise and the situation here is that there is clear non-compliance with planning policies which have been identified by officers and tested at appeal in Coates. He stated that the Council has a legal duty to have regards to this previous appeal decision and to act consistently in its decision making, with the proposal being in his view unnecessary, unauthorised and unacceptable and must, therefore, be refused planning permission.

Mr Brand stated that as a parent before undertaking the unauthorised development on the land the applicant advised that he intended to plant an orchard behind his property given that planning permission is not required for planting trees this caused no concerns. His children’s play equipment is situated within 2 metres of the boundary of the application site and was erected on his garden before the applicant purchased the agricultural field, with the play equipment having a raised platform that is 1.5 metres as shown on a photograph on the screen and enables his children access to the monkey bars and slide and is plainly visible from the application site and the applicant would have been fully aware of its location and use but for reasons that have not been explained to him or any prior discussion the applicant then decided to erect a chicken enclosure adjacent to his children’s play equipment, with the enclosure being around two thirds the size of a one-bed flat and, in his view, excessive in size and could hold several hundred chickens according to guidance.

Mr Brand referred to the view that his children have of the chicken enclosure displaying another photo and the officer’s report correctly identifies that the full use of the site could have been used as land being grazed, which is correct but it is not correct to say that the chicken enclosure building could be erected in this location without planning permission on land used for agricultural, which is not being used or sought for. He stated that he has spoken to many people who keep or have kept chickens and he has been made aware of the noise and smell issues and that they attract vermin.

Mr Brand referred to the Parish Council highlighting this issue as part of its recommendation that planning permission should be refused. He feels that the impacts are unnecessary and if the applicant wishes to keep chickens on the land there is no good reason why they cannot be accommodated closer to his property, with them being kept in the applicant’s garden before the unauthorised development was undertaken and its placement within a few metres of where his children play is unnecessary and unacceptable.

Mr Brand questioned why the applicant wishes to have the enclosure that they walk to and from regularly so close to his children’s play equipment, with his children feeling intimidated by the building being so close to the area they used to enjoy playing in. He expressed the view that the impact on his children’s enjoyment of the garden is unacceptable and unnecessary, with him asking the applicant to move the structure but his unreasonable response was not moving.

Mr Brand stated that he has not been able to read the applicant’s personal circumstances statement which was submitted earlier this month and it is unclear to him why this has been submitted so recently. He expressed sympathy for whatever those personal circumstances are but he does not consider these to justify the grant of planning permission for a development which is unacceptable contrary to planning law and has such a level of impact on his family.

Mr Brand expressed the opinion that the planning application is unacceptable in relation to planning policy matters and creates unnecessary impacts on his children’s use of the garden. He urged members to refuse planning permission.

Members asked questions of Mr Brand as follows:

·       Councillor Marks asked if Mr Brand was saying that if the chicken coop is moved he would be happy with the rest of the development? Mr Brand responded that as a parent he would be much more happy with that situation but as a Town Planner the land use is unacceptable in his view as well as officers view and the Coates appeal decision. Councillor Marks stated that apart from the chicken coop the development looks like trees so what is seen in the garden with a 6 foot fence surrounding it and could he actually see the chicken coop. Mr Brand stated that they can see the proposal from their property, but not from the ground floor or from the garden, but his children have the elevated play equipment.

·       Councillor Benney expressed the view that living next door to a barking dog is bad enough and chickens can be noisy and also smelly and asked if the chicken run impacts his life in any way in being close to his property and family at present? Mr Brand responded that the chickens have only been put in the enclosure very recently as far as he is aware so at present it does not but due to the size of the building it could house a number of chickens and he feels the impact from this would be substantial, but it is a wait and see situation. He feels that some sort of impact assessment should have been submitted with the application.

·       Councillor Sutton asked Mr Brand whether he had any vermin or rats on his property to date? Mr Brand responded that neighbours have had vermin in their gardens but he has not seen anything in his garden yet. Councillor Sutton stated that he will have. Councillor Mrs French agreed, she used to keep chickens and she had to get rid of them as she was fed up with the rats and once you have got them it is a job to get rid of them. 

·       Councillor Connor stated that he was at the Parish Council meeting when Mr Brand gave his presentation, but did not take part only observed, but the Parish Council voted to refuse this application on the grounds that it is a retrospective application and as Mr Brand would be aware a retrospective application has to be given the same weight as a normal planning application. He referred to the Parish Council making further comments reviewing the size and location of the chicken run considering it to be more appropriate if this was located behind the applicant’s property. Councillor Connor expressed the view that whilst the Parish Council have objected, one of the reasons does not mean too much and the other reason is more of an informative in that they would rather it was moved and asked if Mr Brand agreed with this? Mr Brand stated that he does not agree, he was at the Parish Council meeting and heard the reasons given and they were saying that they objected to the application and why could it not be behind the applicant’s property.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Gregg Pelling, a supporter. Mr Pelling stated that he lives at 4 Askham Row with his partner and two children, being a neighbour of Mr Brand to the east and a field neighbour of Mr Craske also to the east. He stated that he cares about this proposal as it is his long-term plan to stay in his house until he is old and this decision has significant impact on the future plan for his field.

Mr Pelling expressed the view that the objections claim urbanising and he looked at the definition of urbanising and its says to make urban in nature or to industrialise so he then checked the definition of urban and that theory does not match the plans or the application so he feels this is a moot point by the definition. He referred to an objection point being that the introduction of a domestic garden will set a precedent for further harm and expressed the opinion that this is quite the opposite as the combined purchase of the land was a protective measure by the residents of Askham Row to avoid any housing development to the rear, which he feels would be urbanising, not trees and bushes.

Mr Pelling stated that in the objection there is a lot of reference to Fenland Local Plan and specific LPs and he has dissected and examined some of these, with, in his view, there being plenty of extracts that support the nature of this application, with even in the pre-text there being the mention of biodiversity support as well as pollution reduction through the planting of trees. He feels the objection is quite right in that LP12, part A, sub-section C does oppose the application but that sub-sections A, B, D, E, F, G, H, I, and K as a minimum abide with the cause or often support it, with K seeing the land becoming protected against flooding with substantial planting.

Mr Pelling referred to Policy LP16 and the objection highlighting sub-section D, which he feels is not clear cut as it mentions “resilience to climate change” and “reinforces local identity” and, in his view, the transformation of what was a pesticide and fertiliser exhausted field into a biodiverse array of native planting and oxygen producing trees is a clear counter to climate change. He expressed the opinion that Government policy around tree planting and tax relief available for decarbonising through tree planting is the biggest demonstration of this, with the local identity of Doddington being an attractive leafy green village as is the feel of a walk around the village which will only be strengthened by the addition of another beautiful garden.

Mr Pelling referred to LP19 which he feels strongly supports the application with biodiversity and ecological restoration of recreational habitats and there is evidence of LP19 in action with the result of the works with animals and insects returning and flourishing, showing photos of these animals and insects on the land. He displayed a photo of a bee hive in the field, which shows that honeycomb comes in lots of different colours and displayed an extract from UK Bee Keeping which shows where the different colours come from, with a significant amount being from the native planting in the applicant’s area and DEFRA have produced a Healthy Bee Plan for 2030 which supports the work done in the garden and creation of this habitat.

Mr Pelling expressed the opinion that the way the plan supports bee colonies gives argument against the LP12 sub-section C defence as it supports the expansion of the existing character of the Doddington area and a positive impact on pollination of the farmland specifically mentioning sub-section C. He displayed a photo showing the view from his garden, which shows at garden level and fence height next to nothing is visible other than the outline of the back of the field and tree line which gives the area its character, with nothing having been interrupted by what has taken place in that garden.

Mr Pelling stated that he does have a DEFRA licence to keep hundreds of chickens and pigs in his field so any concerns about the vermin or smells that may come from the applicant’s three hens would be massively outweighed by what he has the right to do now.

Members asked questions of Mr Pelling as follows:

·       Councillor Marks referred to the last photo displayed and asked if there are alpacas at the bottom of the garden? Mr Pelling responded that these are sheep but this is Megaplants land, with that business intending to put shire horses on the land but it is not suitable at present so for the next two years sheep will utilise the site and after this time the land will be more suitable for shire horses. Councillor Marks asked if they were fed nuts and similar stuff as he wanted to understand about the vermin issue. Mr Pelling responded that he is not aware as it is not his land, but there have not been any rats with the sheep.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that on the site visit members were able to go into the garden and the land behind and were aware that the gardens alongside were already beginning to be “urbanised” so she can see why Mr Pelling would support the application because he is obviously intending to go the same way? Mr Pelling responded that until this application was submitted he was not aware there was any issue, all he has done at the moment is erect a fence, create chicken housing that could house up to around about 100 chickens and created an apiary for bees. He made the point that he has a DEFRA licence and it is his understanding that the use of chickens and bees are considered to be a domestic activity as well as an agricultural activity, with trees encouraged for planting and supporting any agricultural activity as well as fencing so his understanding is that what he has undertaken lies within the realms of agricultural land usage.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the opinion that if she brought a house in Askham Row and then one neighbour wanted 100 chickens, another neighbour wanted 200 chickens and other animals this is not what she signed up for. Mr Pelling responded that an agricultural use is being talked about and he got an DEFRA licence on this land as agricultural land for agricultural use for chickens so this application by turning it into a garden is putting a limit on the number of chickens so if you wanted to protect those houses from enormous amounts of livestock then granting planning permission is the way to do that as his DEFRA licence allows him to keep pigs, chickens and other animals.

·       Councillor Sutton made the point that Mr Pelling is making a big issue about the DEFRA licence and asked how he came about it? Mr Pelling responded that it was a birthday present from his partner, he had always wanted to keep pigs and his partner went through the process had to fill in an enormous amount of paperwork and he was issued with a licence from DEFRA for keeping livestock, but he has not purchased any yet.

·       Councillor Topgood stated that he keeps bees having four hives and has also kept chickens in the past and chickens absolutely decimate gardens but does Mr Pelling not think it would have been an idea for the chicken coop to be the opposite end of the field? Mr Pelling responded that his personal one is significantly larger but it is not covered and he does not have any stock currently due to the bird flu issue and the one in the application is roughly about 25% the size of his, with the applicant having three hens. He expressed the view that when chickens get their segregated area you soon know whether they are going to overcome the area as the ground gets stripped and in the applicant’s area the ground is not being stripped which gives you an indication of how sparse the chicken population is with three chickens and in the size of site he has you are not going to see the noise and smells because it is that limited and although he does not believe it can be a planning condition the applicant has no desire to get more chickens. He stated that he had 10 chickens before a fox got in and there was not a smell, rodent or noise issue and no one keeps cockerels as it is acknowledged that would be anti-social. 

·       Councillor Topgood expressed the view that it is difficult as the committee is basically in the middle of a neighbourhood dispute and he can see the benefits of the garden with biodiversity but he can also see the objector’s point of view. Mr Pelling stated that he has met with both parties individually to try and find a middle ground but feels his intervention was a little bit late as things had escalated by then and the issue is that he is not sure there is a way to legislate a happy ending for everyone.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis asked if officers can comment on what permitted development can take place on agricultural land? Theresa Nicholl responded that the application being considered is not for agricultural land it is for a change of use from agricultural to garden land so if permission was granted for the current application then permitted development rights would exist the same as they do for the curtilage of any dwelling so in theory you could build buildings up to half the area of that garden as long as it met other stipulations. She stated that in terms of agricultural land, as Mr Pelling has referred to, it would have to be an agricultural unit and if there was a holding number issued it would have to be classed as an agricultural unit but because it is going to be she believes below 5 hectares and it is in such close proximity to dwellings you would not need permission to keep animals as it would be agricultural but you would need permission for any buildings to house those animals. Mr Pelling stated that this in line with guidance he was given, as he is below 5 hectares if he wanted a solid building then it would require permission. Theresa Nicholl stated that within 400 metres of a protected building, which is any dwelling, so whilst animals might be allowed to be kept on land as long as it remains in agricultural use not garden any permanent building on there would need planning permission. Mr Pelling feels that one of the difficulties, reading between the details, is the construction of the chicken enclosure, which is effectively a very high fence and the issue then comes in that it has to be covered through bird flu legislation which effectively forms a top which although it is a netting over a fence construction does putting a net over the top making it become a building, which, in his opinion, it does not as it was not a building to start with it is a modification in line with DEFRA requirements.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Kevin Craske, the applicant. Mr Craske stated that the officer has recommended refusal on one point only as all other aspects of this application have been accepted as being agricultural or not amounting to development or in keeping with a countryside setting. He feels the point in case is the encroachment of the domestic garden into the wide open countryside in detriment to the character of the setting and that the Coates proposal F/YR20/0107/F has set a precedent.

Mr Craske expressed the view that the application conforms to multiple aspects of Fenland planning policy which has been overlooked and the use of Coates as a reference point is completely invalid. He stated that the land was acquired to protect it from development and he has been working tirelessly towards biodiversity and enhancing the landscape by ensuring it blends in using native planting and trees similar to those in the surrounding landscape thus retaining the distinctive Fenland character as required by the Local Plan and there might be a seat to rest and enjoy the numerous animals that visit them all contributing to personal well-being.

Mr Craske stated that he has highlighted how this proposal facilitates the health and well-being of Fenland residents, with most of his neighbours having visited the site and stating how much joy they receive from the improvements he has made and the increased level of wildlife as do many users of the nearby public footpath. He referred to LP12 and LP16 and that he is enhancing biodiversity habitat whilst retaining and increasing natural features of the setting, ie trees, hedges, grasses, bushes and the pond, all adding to the sustainability of the setting as the planting matures offering even further habitat, with a number of birds and small critters that drink from the water at his pond being unbelievable and magic to observe and if this does not add to local landscape character he does not know what does.

Mr Craske stated that the officer has equally commented how there will be no adverse impact on residents of Askham Row given that there is a 2 metre high close boarded fence between the properties and the chicken coop itself is only 1 metre square and can only hold a maximum of 5 chickens, with the run being 9 metres by 3 metres which is where Mr Brand gets his calculations of 720 chickens from. He stated that he has no intention of getting more, and will accept a restriction on numbers of chickens if desired to five or even three.

Mr Craske expressed the view that the site now attracts a wider array of wildlife, birds, bats, bees, insects, dragonflies etc which were not present previously and that is due to his efforts to support and provide habitat to the natural environment as in LP19, which the Council are encouraged to support. He referred to much being made of the Coates development as a benchmark, which in his view is totally inappropriate and does not give credence to the very different settings, he showed pictures of Coates which he feels shows that Coates site is in a very obviously wide and open landscape expanding for miles even beyond the pictures with the nearest built up area behind this development being over 4 miles to Thorney and 6 miles to Guyhirn within uninterrupted views which is very stark contrast to Askham Row which is only 85 metres from commercial premises on one side,100 metres on the other and 250 metres to the rear making that benchmark inappropriate by the officer and each case should be considered on its own individual setting characteristics.

Mr Craske referred to the next picture on the screen taken on 10 August, which shows the setting of their site in the centre and, in his view, is very clearly different to Coates, with to the left a field owned by No.8 with the intended use for equestrian and the field to the right owned by No.4 whose use is like the application site, trees, orchard, bees, fencing, etc. He stated that the field to the bottom is owned by Megaplants, the garden centre, whose intended use is equestrian and he feels it is obvious that there are large developments to the left and right of the picture, the hospital with Doddington Court retirement community adjacent on the left and on the right Askham Village Community Care Home, both projecting further into the very same setting of the application site.

Mr Craske stated that the bottom left photo shows further housing development visible in the setting with one house currently with a second to be built shortly with a further two behind, which presents a clear delineation of the built up area in this setting with this small secluded parcel of land being surrounded by multiple businesses which, in his view, is nothing like the Coates wide open countryside with far reaching views there being no comparison and the planning assessment has rather considered this site in a generic countryside form which is, in his view, incorrect. He stated that he green highlighted homes at the top of one of his pictures are the houses which submitted comments in full support of this application as they are very pleased with what he is trying to do not only to protect the site from development but also to bring wildlife into the area which he has been very successful in doing.

Members asked questions of Mr Craske as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that on the site visit members saw the double gates in the fence and asked what are the gates for? Mr Craske responded that he has right of access over the land across to the public footpath, which is for occasional use to bring in bits and pieces.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis asked Mr Craske why he has continued to add what is referred to as domestic paraphernalia when he knew that this application could be potentially refused? Mr Craske responded that he is not aware of what domestic paraphernalia is being referred too but a chair has been added.

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

·       Councillor Sutton expressed the view that the officer’s recommendation is correct as the applicant can do most of the things he wants do, the same as Mr Pelling can do, in an agricultural field and he does not need the change of use to undertake lots of these activities. He stated that in regards to the chickens he can assure that there will be rat infestations as his daughter had some chickens some years ago and now does not have any because she could not get rid of the rats. Councillor Sutton stated that he owns a property in the locality and the tenants asked to keep chickens and he agreed that they could have them and then had to reverse the decision as he had that many complaints from the neighbours about the rats, so he believes the recommendation is right. He does not think it would be of any great detriment to what is contained in the confidential appendix to keep it as agriculture as all the things suggested can still be undertaken at the back of the field without a change of use. Councillor Sutton expressed the view that there is a precedent set with the Inspector’s decision in Coates despite what the applicant says agricultural land is still be referred to. He feels if this is granted then the other land either side will follow.

·       Councillor Topgood stated that he is at a loss as to why the applicant is applying for a change of use because they can keep animals on agricultural land and do what they want with it within reason and he can only think that in the future that the land will become building plots or they will want to use it as their garden. He made the point that they can landscape the land, put a pond in, have animals on the land all without change of use.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor made the point that the actual application is change of land to domestic purposes, which is not farmland as Mr Pelling was talking about because he has a DEFRA licence and he will be a “farmer”, but this application is to change the land to domestic garden use. She stated that if it is currently agricultural land and he wants to make it garden it requires a change of use.

·       Councillor Marks asked if it goes from land for agricultural use to normal garden use then the applicant cannot build anything and would have to submit a planning application? Theresa Nicholl responded that unless permitted development rights were removed he would have the full permitted development rights on that land that goes with any dwelling but there are things that could be done that are domestic that do not need planning permission such as tables and chairs, umbrellas, things that are moveable and if permission was granted unless the permitted development rights were taken away they could build freestanding buildings as it would be land within the curtilage of their dwelling house.

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