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 Gareth Edwards, the agent. Mr Edwards stated that this is an outline application with all matters reserved following an earlier committee decision to approve the application which comes back to committee following points made by Councillor Sutton. He expressed the opinion that the application being to replace two holiday lets that have an extant permission with no restrictions so could be occupied all year, which were to be single-storey structure of a temporary nature in Flood Zone 3 and formed part of the previous owner’s farm diversification.

Mr Edwards advised that the proposal is for two-storey dwellings, which will have sleeping accommodation on the first floor along with safe refuge which is not the case with the holiday accommodation so, in his view, provides a betterment. He stated that the applicant purchased the farm with the extant permission along with the agricultural land, farmhouse and buildings to expand the farming enterprise for both themselves and family and are continually looking at various forms of additional businesses and opportunities to diversify and expand.

Mr Edwards stated that as the report states the applicant has two daughters that are solely employed in the applicant’s family businesses along with himself and his wife, with one daughter along with her husband and child living at Allenby Farm with the applicant and the other daughter lives within Fenland but travels to the farm daily. He stated that the applicant’s proposal is that each daughter is to be gifted a plot to self-build their own family home so they have independent living that is close to the family farm and farming enterprise as they look again to expand this part of the business along with further diversification and as everyone will be aware that if you stand still in the business world you are going backwards.

Mr Edwards reiterated that it is the intention for the daughters to self-build their dwelling as their principal residence as is the case for many individual plots in the area due to the rise in land, labour and material costs this has proven to be a popular choice, although from previous experience not necessarily the quickest option. He referred to a number of points being made since committee’s earlier approval of the application that the report outlines, with various toing and froing of communications and it is not known who has made these points but in essence these are dwellings to be occupied by the applicant’s daughters who are an intrinsic part of the running of the applicant’s businesses for now and very much for the future.

Mr Edwards stated they are not solely employed in agriculture but are in the family businesses that operate largely from Allenby Farm but have other locations in Fenland. He made the point that the applicant is with him today should members have any points they wish to clarify on the family businesses and proposals in front of them but to successfully run a number of businesses, in his view, requires shared responsibilities and who better than your own family to share both the highs and lows.

Mr Edwards concluded that these houses are to be the principal residences of the applicant’s daughters to self-build their homes for them and their families, it provides betterment in terms of flood risk as sleeping accommodation is to be on the first-floor and it is a permanent dwelling not temporary, it will allow the daughters to be closer to the family farm and enterprise as it expands along with the other family businesses, the applicant has answered the various points raised since the last application and they ask that the committee approves this application for two dwellings which should you want to condition that they are to be self-build the applicant is happy for this as this is the intention and financially the only real option.

Members asked questions of Mr Edwards and Mr Hopkin as follows:

·       Councillor Marks referred to Mr Edwards making great play on family businesses and asked what percentage these two children are employed in agriculture compared to other business and what are the other businesses? Mr Hopkin responded that the other businesses are utilities and construction type of businesses and they undertake a lot of soil and concrete crushing so his daughters are involved on a day-to-day basis with this. Councillor Marks questioned whether there was a need for them to live on the farm? Mr Hopkin responded that they work on the farm as well. Councillor Marks reiterated what percentage? Mr Hopkin responded that this varies due to the time of the year, through the Summer it is probably 80-90 percent but this time of the year very little going into a busier period during the Spring. Councillor Marks asked if there was livestock or was it just arable? Mr Hopkin stated that the plan is to bring livestock into the business.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that he was not present in August when this application was first heard and asked if it is being said the whole thing is hinging on whether there is an agricultural case for these two properties or not? Nick Harding responded that yes this is fundamental to the determination of the application. Councillor Cornwell asked has the applicant actually given enough information to prove that they meet that requirement? Nick Harding responded that they have not.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that committee spent a lot of time on this application when it was heard previously when members overturned the recommendation of officers to refuse the application and it is disappointing that it is back before committee without the information required.

·       Councillor Marks agreed with Councillor Mrs French, members did consider this application for a long time previously and members have seen other applications such as one in Coates where it was approved because information was provided, and the information is not available on this application which is required and he feels officers have got the decision correct.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that the committee did consider this application for a long time previously and members were trying to determine what sort of and what percentage of agriculture was involved, whether livestock or arable, and she does not feel that satisfactory answers were forthcoming then. She feels the officer’s recommendation is correct.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she was at committee for consideration of the previous application and if other members that were there recall the two daughters living in the properties was dropped in at the actual meeting and was not part of the original information that members had for the application that is why it ensued into such a long debate and members are back considering an application again with the same debate. She feels officers have got the recommendation right and they need more information if they want to come back.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he received some confidential information on this proposal and it is his duty to take on the concerns of residents and pass onto officers whilst maintaining this confidentiality.

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

(Councillor Sutton declared that it might be perceived that he is pre-determined on this application so took no part in the voting on this application)