Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members.

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 Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the proposal is for two dwellings on a parcel of land which already benefits from planning permission for two holiday log cabins, with the application for the log cabins having been implemented and, therefore, remains extant. She expressed the view that the dwellings proposed are for the daughters of the applicant, Mr Hopkin, and they are employed in the family business at Allenby Farm, currently living at Allenby Farm and do not wish to relocate from the village.

Mrs Jackson stated that the site, which already has planning permission for a type of accommodation, is in a prime location for the future occupiers to carry out a self-build project whilst remaining in close proximity to their existing employment and family. She referred to the reasons for refusal which include there being no justification for the proposal in this countryside location, which would undermine sustainability principles, however, in her opinion, the harm in terms of sustainability if any has already been caused by permission for the holiday cabins which officers have acknowledged can be brought onto the site at any time.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that the question is whether new housing in this location would be less sustainable than the holiday cabins and she would argue that dwelling houses are similar in character to holiday accommodation given that they both provide a type of residential accommodation, with one of the key differences being that holiday accommodation is likely to attract further vehicular movements given that holiday makers will travel to and from the site on excursions and for food and drink by private vehicle. She feels this in stark contrast to the proposed future occupiers who will be in walking distance to their place of work and would, therefore, be less reliant on their private motor vehicles.

Mrs Jackson expressed the opinion that the permission for the holiday accommodation did not contain any restrictions on the time of occupancy throughout the year and, therefore, the cabins could be occupied by holiday makers all year round in very much the same way as a standard dwelling and she would question what the harm would be in having dwellings on this site in lieu of the permitted holiday cabins. She stated that the application is submitted in outline only and, therefore, the opportunity remains to design an attractive pair of self-build properties which will be of a higher quality, both in appearance and in construction, than the permitted holiday cabins.

Mrs Jackson stated that the site already has permission for two units of accommodation, and it is submitted that the proposal would cause no more harm to the rural locality than the extant permission on site, noting that the boundary hedging will remain on site and will soften the appearance of the dwellings when viewed from the wider locality. She expressed the view that the proposal would be an improvement on the extant permission as it would allow permanent structures on site and first-floor accommodation could be provided which would be a betterment in terms of flood risk providing a safer type of accommodation in the event of flooding.

Mrs Jackson stated that the comments raised in terms of the sequential test have been noted, however, as this site already benefits from planning permission and the scheme would represent an improvement for flood risk, she feels the scheme is sequentially acceptable. She made the point that there are no objections raised by technical consultees including the Environment Agency, North Level IDB and the Highway Authority.

Mrs Jackson hoped that members would be able to appreciate the merits of this proposal in that the site already benefits from planning permission for two units of continuous accommodation and, therefore, in her view, the principle of development on this site is already established, with the application seeking to vary the type of accommodation to provide self-build plots to allow for local residents to stay within the local area and in close proximity to their employment. She feels there is no harm caused in policy terms and the scheme provides a betterment in terms of flood risk.

Members asked questions of Mrs Jackson and the applicant, Mr Hopkin, as follows:

·         Councillor Benney referred to the mention that proposal was for family members in the family business and asked what is the business and how will this application help it to grow? Mrs Jackson responded that the family members are living and working on site at the moment, which is a farm, but this proposal allows them to stay within the area to continue to support the business. Mr Hopkin informed members that they are predominantly farmers, they have some stock as well and the proposal will allow them to take on more land and more stock. Councillor Benney asked Mr Hopkin if he is looking to develop and enhance the business by bringing family members in and these properties will allow this to go ahead? Mr Hopkin confirmed this to be the case.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked what type of stock is on the farm? Mr Hopkin responded that they have goats, chickens and there are plans for cows as well.

·         Councillor Marks asked roughly how far away is the farm from the site? Mr Hopkin responded that it is approximately 50-60 metres.

·         Councillor Sutton asked how many acres is farmed? Mr Hopkin responded that he has 540 acres. Councillor Sutton asked how many employees? Mr Hopkin stated himself and two daughters.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked how many goats does Mr Hopkin have as she is wondering how many staff are required to look after goats and chickens as some people just keep them in their back gardens and she asked if commercial numbers are being talked about? Mr Hopkin responded that there are three goats at present but there are plans to develop a beef herd.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs Davis referred to the fact that a sequential test has again not been undertaken and asked if this applies to a holiday home as someone will not be displaced from their main residence? Nikki Carter responded that a sequential test would still apply but the previous application was determined under different policy requirements. Nick Harding added that in terms of the application submission it mentions the dwellings would be for occupation by family members but there is no mention of these being tied to the business or any information on how well the business is doing or a business plan on how the business is intended to grow and on that basis this should be disregarded as a matter to help determine the application as no information has been provided to support this.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the mention by Mrs Jackson that there is no timescale restrictions for the holiday lets and asked what is to stop the applicant building the holiday lets and someone living in them permanently? Nick Harding responded that as they are holiday accommodation by their definition they could not be someone’s main residence.

·         Councillor Mrs French made the point that there is over 500 acres being farmed and she is sure that there are a variety of tasks to be undertaken with a business, such as books to be kept. Nick Harding responded that Government policy on agricultural dwellings is clear in that it has to be demonstrated there is a need for people to be present on site and you do not need to be on site to keep books for the business. He stated that the application had not been submitted on the basis of them being agricultural dwellings and no evidence as required by policy had been submitted and therefore committee should not consider the application as if it was for an agricultural dwelling.

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

·         Councillor Sutton referred to the previous proposal where the Chairman agreed with officers that the application should be refused and asked if this effects his position considering this application? Councillor Connor stated that this has not been brought to his attention as being an issue. Stephen Turnbull stated that this another application and any member is entitled to look at the new application and assess it on its merits.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that if the applicant is claiming that the proposal is for an agricultural worker then the proper process should be followed which is to prove a demonstrable need, which they have not done, and they could not on 540 acres as it could not be justified for two dwellings. He made the point that there is extant permission to put the two holiday lets on the site, which in 2007 there was an urgent need for, and, in his view, officers have got the recommendation right, with it being refused with the Chairman’s blessing just a short time ago. Councillor Sutton expressed the view that nothing has changed from that refusal, it is not even close to the village and does not have support from the Parish Council.

·         Councillor Murphy agreed with the comments of Councillor Sutton as he feels that the wool is being pulled over members eyes for something the applicant wants that is not necessary or needed.

·         Councillor Benney feels there is another side to this proposal, with there being a gentleman who is running a business and he wants to bring his family into it and, whilst he agrees with Councillor Sutton there is a method to do this and this probably should have been undertaken, there is an application for consideration in front of members for two homes. He feels that if someone wants to bring their family into the business and enable the business to grow the committee should do what it can to support this business, with not everyone wanting to live on an estate with other people and houses, and he feels the proposal will provide two nice dwellings. Councillor Benney referred to caravans in Flood Zone 3 in Guyhirn where applications were approved because it is safer to be in a house than it is a caravan as you can put better mitigation measures in to safeguard people. He would be inclined to support the proposal as there are benefits and it is providing homes for members of a family within a business. 

·         Councillor Connor agreed with Councillor Benney and the Council should be encouraging people to build houses referring to an approval in Wisbech St Mary and whilst the application should probably have been submitted in a different manner members need to determine what is in front of them.

·         Councillor Benney referred to the sequential test, which he has been reading up on and he feels that up until three planning committee meetings ago as a committee mitigation measures were being accepted for building in Flood Zone 3, with a lot of the overturns by the committee bringing forward a lot of homes that people are going to live in being assessed on the sequential test and as Councillor Sutton has said people can build in Wisbech in Flood Zone 3 but cannot build in other locations, such as Benwick and Turves, but Wisbech would flood more often that Benwick and Turves ever will. He expressed the view that all of the mitigations measures put in help safeguard flooding but it will also flood if  all the pumps were turned off so he views the sequential test as a blot to development, which is stopping sensible, feasible and viable applications as not everything is going to be built in Flood Zones 1 and 2, with there being a lot of land that is ideal for building on and it is being turned down because of the sequential test. Councillor Benney feels that how the test is undertaken gives an unbalanced view and he does not consider when members have a good application in front of them that is a good enough reason to refuse an application and they need to get back on track by passing these applications assessed on their own merits. In his view, if member adhere to the sequential test requirements religiously good applications will be turned down providing good homes for people and in the past few years the committee has not done this, and it needs to get back to where it was with consistency. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that if this site is going to flood that badly a house should be built on it to make it safe for the people who are going to live there.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that if this application was submitted in the manner it should have been, if it is for a farm worker, then the sequential test is null and void because the dwelling is needed to be where it is.

·         Nick Harding confirmed that Councillor Sutton is broadly right but reminded members that the sequential test is not the same as the exceptions test and it is the exceptions test which, amongst other things, determines whether or not mitigations that are proposed on a development are sufficient to deal with the flood risk. He made the point that the sequential test must be passed before you can go on to do the exceptions test and if the sequential test is failed then you cannot go on to consider the exceptions test. Nick Harding added that this is a nationally driven policy where it says the sequential test must be undertaken and you cannot not do it.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Mrs Mayor that the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation, which was not supported on a majority vote by members.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Connor and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions to include that the dwellings be tied to the business and the requirement for a Section 106 Agreement due to the properties being self-build.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that there is already permission for holiday accommodation and it would be safer for the dwellings to be permanent houses, it will enable family members to remain on site to enable the business to grow, the benefits of the proposal outweigh the negatives and as the proposal is for family members to enhance the business it is deemed that there is no need for a sequential test as the need for the dwellings exists.