Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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 and from Andy Sewell, the applicant. Mrs Jackson explained that the proposal is for the construction of two buildings to accommodate an established building contractor’s business and the associated office. She stated that the business is a family run local enterprise and the proposal will allow the applicant to work from his home at Park House.

Mrs Jackson stated that the applicant is keen to invest in the business but is unable to do so in the rented accommodation which he currently operates from and the proposal site offers an excellent opportunity to provide bespoke buildings which meet the specific needs of the enterprise to secure the long-term viability and for it to be retained within the local area, with 75% of the staff who are employed by the applicant are from around Wisbech. She explained that the size and height of the buildings have been calculated to be specific in order to meet the exact needs of the business and she has worked closely with a Conservation specialist to ensure that the buildings have very little impact, with them being single storey and positioned approximately 50 metres away from Park House behind a brick wall.

Mrs Jackson expressed the opinion that the buildings will not dominate any views or harm the setting of the Listed Building and the buildings are set well back within the site and will be screened from the front and side by the existing frontage trees and forest to the east and will, therefore, have no harmful visual impact on the visual amenities of the countryside. She explained that the nature of the business does not provide for semi-industrial activity and the site will primarily function as an administrative hub and a base for vehicles and equipment in between jobs.

Mrs Jackson made reference to the history of the wider site which included the residential conversions of the barns which were originally associated with Park House and the barns which have now been converted are in separate ownerships. She stated that in effect the proposal before members would replace the barns so that Park House would again benefit from associated barns which would typically be expected of a building of this nature and explained that the previous use of the site was for the storage of stock cars and there is evidence to show that they were on the land until 2020 which proves that there has been recent commercial activity on the land.

Mrs Jackson stated that Section 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) supports the rural economy and recognises that sites to meet local business needs in rural areas may need to be found beyond existing settlements. She explained that it states that sites that are well related to existing settlements should be encouraged where opportunities exist, and the development will provide an economic use within a rural area which benefits from excellent transport links.

Mrs Jackson stated that there is no other land available to accommodate the specific needs of the business within the main settlement and the land has a previous commercial use and is available now. She expressed the opinion that the site does represent an opportunity to promote appropriate economic development in order to meet Section 6 of the NPPF and she made the point that she hopes that members can see that the significant local economic benefits of the application outweigh any perceived harm in relation to heritage and locational aspects.

Mr Sewell explained that he operates his family business and the application is key to its expansion in order to make the business more productive, with the company also including a joinery section and the rented accommodation currently used is not suitable for the planned expansion of the company. He explained that his company undertakes work for the likes of Burger King, KFC, Costa Coffee and Sandringham House and also works within the locality too.

Members asked Mrs Jackson and Mr Sewell the following questions:

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that there are comments within the report which state that the use of the current land for the business is unauthorised and he asked whether that is correct? Mr Sewell stated that there is nothing on the site currently that was not there originally, and made reference to Google Maps which shows that the area that he is currently occupying was used previously for stock cars and creating scrap piles. Councillor Cornwell asked Mr Sewell whether he accepts that the current use is unauthorised, and Mr Sewell stated that he agrees that it is.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Murphy asked officers to clarify what the committee are actually determining as currently there is no permission in place, and it is currently illegal. He stated that there is a piece of land with nothing on it so in the first instance it needs permission and as it is a Listed Building would officers normally allow buildings to be built on land without any permission which are adjacent to a Listed Building. Nick Harding stated that the application is part retrospective as there is a construction business operating from the site without planning permission and the proposal before the committee is firstly to make the use lawful and then to consider the construction of the proposed new buildings and the associated infrastructure that goes with it. He added that with regards to the second point raised as to whether it is possible to gain consent to construct buildings in the grounds of a Listed Building, there is the potential of this being permissible, but a great deal depends on a number of factors which need to be considered.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that members are considering a double application which includes the regularisation of the current use and then adding to the use by building. He added he is somewhat confused as to why it is being done in that particular format as, in his opinion, it would have been better to regularise the business use of the piece of land which is immediately adjacent quite a rare classification of Listed Building which is a Grade 2 *. Councillor Cornwell added that he presumes that some of the buildings surrounding Park House are also within that classification. Nick Harding confirmed that the comments made by Councillor Cornwell are correct.

·       Nick Harding stated that the application in its own right does not seek to authorise the use as it sits there physically because members are being asked to regularise it in the context of what the proposal is. He explained that members cannot make a decision to approve the use as it stands today but not the construction and development.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor asked for clarity as to whether the two converted barns are also Grade 2 Listed Buildings. David Rowen stated that the two converted barns that Mrs Jackson referred to in her presentation are Grade 2 listed in their own right.

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

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that whilst she likes to respect conservation, the Council has a strapline which states that we are open for business and the application is for a man who is looking to expand his family business and provide more employment in the area. She added that she often wonders why we cannot have new buildings within and by Listed Buildings. She added that whilst she understands the need to protect the buildings, it often appears to be to the detriment of something else.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that in the officer’s report it makes reference to the erection of a 2.2-metre-high brick wall and gates and she asked for clarity as to whether the gates that are already in place are already part retrospective or are the gates being replaced for different ones. David Rowen stated that the gates proposed are between the two buildings.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that he is also undecided between the two aspects of the application and had the business side of the proposal been a bit further away from the Grade 2* Listed Building then he may have considered supporting the business slightly more. He added that as the proposal is right next door to the house, some of the buildings that are there are actually incorporated and, in his opinion, there is no clarification between the two aspects of the application within the proposal. Councillor Cornwell added that he may be more inclined to support the proposal if there was an actual physical distance between the two aspects and the plot size does lend itself to that being able to happen whilst still giving some visual protection to the house and at the same time creating the business need. He stated that the house is a Grade 2* Listed Building which is not a very common type of dwelling within Fenland.

·       Councillor Benney stated that the Council should be encouraging growth and Mr Sewell is looking to invest in his business and whilst he appreciates that it is a Grade 2* Listed Building, in his opinion, new dwellings can live beside older dwellings. He expressed the view that it would not be detrimental, and the application has a great deal of positives, with, as he has stated before, the best way to look after your business is to be on the premises. Councillor Benney added that the premises is in a rural area and there can be instances of rural crime, however, if the applicant is living close to his premises he can look after it which is an excellent form of security. He stated that the applicant has gone to the trouble of submitting an application and, therefore, he must feel that it is a worthwhile exercise as he wants to expand and progress his company. Councillor Benney made the point that as the proposal is for a builder’s yard, it should not ideally be located in a residential area and it does need to be in a more rural location which, in his opinion, the proposal is an ideal place. He added that he will be supporting the proposal.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that it is a difficult decision where there is heritage and a business to be considered. He expressed the view that officers have made the correct recommendation and there is plenty of industrial land in the current Local Plan and whilst it would not fit in a residential area it would ideally fit in an industrial area of which there are plenty in Fenland. Councillor Sutton stated that to build this building next to a Grade 2* Listed Building, in his opinion, does not sit well with him and he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·       Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that the application submitted could have been better if there was a very clear distinction between the operation of the business and the actual protection of the immediate area of what is, in his view, a very attractive house. He made the point that there is possibly the need for the investment from one, to help the other, but his view remains that there should be a much clearer definition of the two uses, the house and the business, which, in his opinion, could be done in a way that protects the heritage of one and in effect does not stop the other from going ahead. Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that currently the house and the proposed buildings are too close as there is no gap between them, and you have to drive across the front of the property in order to get to the gate to get to the proposed site. He stated that he can see the need for the commercial aspect but also the need to protect the house and, in his view, there is a different way of doing it compared to the submitted application and for that reason he will supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·       Nick Harding explained that the Local Plan and national policy does make provision for the expansion of existing buildings which are located in the rural area. He stated that the initial consideration of the application should be that there is not a lawful business operating from the site and, therefore, members cannot look at the proposal as an expansion of existing business on the site, with there being policies in place which state that when a new business wants to operate within a rural area then there is a restriction on what that can be. Nick Harding explained that it could be that a business needs to be located in a rural area because the nature of the business lends itself to that type of location, but in the application before the committee, which is a construction business, it does not need to be located in an open countryside location and the Council’s policies say a town location is where it should be located. He stated that with regards to the impact the proposal has on the Listed Building, there is the issue of the scale of the buildings themselves and the scale of the area of land which is proposed which, in the view of officers, has an impact on the setting and appreciation of the heritage asset.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Cornwell that the application be REFUSED as per officer’s recommendation, which was not supported by the majority of members.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that under Policy LP3 it is a perfect place to build in the open countryside, under LP6 it is not going to effect the rural economy, that it does not detract from the high quality environment in terms of the Listed Building and the proposal can be located side by side with the heritage asset and under Policy LP18, which assesses the significance of the heritage asset, it is not detrimental.