Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report which 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 the deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with public participation procedure, from Mr Davies, the applicant, and Craig Brand, the agent. Mr Brand made the point that members were probably unaware of the airfield and the air sports the centre offers as it has never been advertised locally due to its unprotected rural location, with the business being successfully operating from the site since 2013. He stated that last year, at the end of the 10 year lease, the applicant completed the purchase of the field from the landowner and the centre currently relies on electricity from solar panels as a sub-station is required to provide a permanent supply at a cost of £44,000.

Mr Brand advised that fire gutted the applicant’s home in 2021 and with the Council aware of their situation they moved into the current mobile home on site and since living here they have realized the benefits to their business which also allows passers by to call in and enquire about the centre’s activities. He referred to the committee report stating that the business could be operated with security cameras but without a permanent electricity supply there is no guarantee that they would be operational during the night, especially in Winter.

Mr Brand referred to a report in the Fenland Citizen of a break-in at a builder’s yard in Whittlesey Road where security cameras and houses opposite provided no deterrent and the applicants believe that only their full-time presence will provide a sufficient deterrent to protect their continued investment and allow them to advertise locally the recreational activities. He mentioned that the report also states a district-wide sequential test is required but, in his opinion, it is unreasonable to expect an existing business to comply with this and the Environment Agency’s flood risk map shows roughly 90% of Fenland in Flood Zone 3, with the towns and villages situated in the higher flood zones.

Mr Brand expressed the view that the business requires an open countryside location for the wind and air sports offered, which Council officers appreciated in granting the original 2012 permission, and the closest dwellings, Cross Road and Burrowmoor Road are also in Flood Zone 3 and related to agricultural farms, none of these are for sale or suitable to provide the needed security. He stated that the applicant wants to make the Fenland community aware of the unique activities the centre offers but needs to be confident that their investment and the recent grant to assist their expansion is protected from theft, living on site they believe will provide that protection and allow an efficient operation being present for business 7 days a week.

Mr Davies stated that Fenland Wind and Air Sports Centre is a unique outdoor recreation centre in East Anglia which has been operating now for over 10 years and since living on site they have picked up regular additional business that would have been missed in the past when they were only present for pre-booked activities. He advised that they recently received a substantial £55,000 Council grant to purchase an additional 10 blow karts complete with sidecars designed for young children and disabled activities, with them all being delivered later this month.

Mr Davies expressed the view that due to the value of his specialist equipment and long-term delays in getting replacements should a break-in occur they would like to live on site to prevent this possibly from happening and make running the business more efficient and secure. He stated that should he be granted planning permission today this will allow him to invest into the permanent electricity supply for the centre as part of the house build, which includes business reception office, disabled toilets and customer welfare facilities and will also enable them to invest in electric rechargeable segways and go-karts as a replacement activity when there is insufficient wind on pre-booked blow gliding days to run the session, being able to offer an alternative activity to the blow karts will dramatically reduce their refund and cancellation rates making the business more profitable and sustainable.

Mr Davies advised that they will also be looking at employing additional local staff to help instruct and supervise customers. He stated that before Covid they were taking party bookings via Groupon and Virgin Experience Days are waiting to come on board as soon as their blow karts are up and running but he has not felt safe to date advertising their local activities generating business only from out of area using websites specifically related to activities available at the Fenland Wind and Air Sports Centre.

Mr Davies expressed the view that knowing they could protect their business by living on site will allow them to expand and attract more new local business offering their services to the local Fenland community by advertising the centre in various town Discovery booklets distributed monthly in the Fenland area along with other local forms of media.

Members asked questions of Mr Davies and Mr Brand as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs Davis asked how many times the property has been broken in to and was it reported to the Police? Mr Davies responded that he has had one break-in and it was reported.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked how long has the mobile home been on site? Mr Davies responded for 18 months since his property in Almond Drive suffered fire damage.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if there is planning permission for the go-karts and is he aware of how noisy they are? Mr Davies responded that the go-karts are electric and environmentally friendly.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated he understands the need for living on site for security, which is why the Economic Development Team support the business. Mr Davies responded that this is correct and they have an exclusivity deal of 75 mile flying rights. Councillor Cornwell asked was the grant received a Council grant? Mr Davies confirmed it was a growth works grant to help purchase the land.

·       Councillor Marks queried what the 75 miles exclusivity deal is for? Mr Davies responded that it is for electric blow karts which have 3 wheels and a sail. He stated that the idea is to also have electric for segways and electric go-karts.

·       Councillor Meekins asked what the core business is as there seems to be an emphasis on go-karts? Mr Davis responded that it is paragliding, being one of the largest centres in the UK, and anything wind related. He added that they are also an activity site and provide Virgin Experience Days and now they have purchased the land they want to reinvest into the business and to live on site to keep the business secure.

·       Councillor Purser questioned how the business is picking up passing trade as it is not on a main road? Mr Davies responded that since they have been living on site people that bike or walk pass the site have been stopping and asking about the business plus it is used as a cut through from the bypass, hence attracting passing trade.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that as Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth he is aware that a grant had been given but has had no dealings with the site or the applicant.

·       Councillor Mrs French questioned the condition of the road to the proposed site as it is known to be in bad condition? Mr Davies responded that it has not been fully resurfaced but some of the pot holes have been filled in. He stated that he tends to direct visitors from Knights End Road as that has been resurfaced.

·       Councillor Connor asked if Fenland is open for business or not, with Economic Growth supporting the venture. He recognises the importance of living onsite from his own personal experience and asked Mr Davies for his views. Mr Davies responded that he agrees, Winter is the worst time as being solar powered they cannot keep secure and being 1.6 miles away from the site it could take up to 20 minutes to get it by which time he could have lost everything and he has worked all his life for this.

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

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that he can remember when this proposal came before committee previously and there was a certain amount of reticence at that time, but it has proved to be very popular and has been given considerable support from the Council in more ways than one, with Fenland being open for business. He made the point that this type of business cannot operate from the middle of a town due to its nature and has to be located in the open countryside, with the site being chosen being away from most residents and it seems that the business is running successfully. Councillor Cornwell acknowledged that there are security problems in that area as he knows people who live in the vicinity. He can see no issues with this application and as the applicant now owns the land he is trying to make a formal set up and run his business properly.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that the committee see several of these applications where members are told there is the need for security and whilst this site may have had one break-in, which was not successful, it is not the damage or theft but the consequences which could lead to the loss of the business. He feels the business needs security as CCTV systems are not foolproof and the best security is to have someone on site and the Council would be failing this business and the applicant if this application is not approved.

·       Councillor Miscandlon stated that he was Chairman of the Planning Committee when this proposal was previously before committee and there was all sorts of concerns about noise and nothing has materialized. He feels it has become a solid business, which needs some form of security. Councillor Miscandlon referred to the mobile home currently on site and there is no notification as to when this will be moved or if it will be staying after the building has been constructed and this needs to be looked at should this application be granted.

·       Nick Harding stated that there have been multiple noise complaints that have been investigated but it is not an easy thing to assess and have not found to be proven. He stated that during one of the enforcement visits to the site, there was discussion with the applicant regarding a fire at their property and the Enforcement Officer gave permission to live on site for a temporary period once the home was being refurbished but the applicant has lived there longer than it was thought and it was nearly at the point of an enforcement notice being served before this application was submitted. Nick Harding made the point that the recommendation for this application is one of refusal so if the committee seek to approve it then a condition will be placed on the application that the mobile home should be removed on first occupation of the dwelling. He also noted that it has become apparent that the Council failed to contact the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and they had objected to the development on the opposite side of the airfield on Cross Road so if committee is seeking to approve this application it would need to be subject to consultation with the CAA as a condition to make sure they do not have any objections to the dwelling being in the position that it is supposed to be.

·       Councillor Sutton applauded the owners for their vision for this successful business, with many members being skeptical at the time of the previous application. He made the point that it could be said that there is not the functional need for a dwelling as the business has been running for 10 years and it would only be desirable to have an office and a dwelling next to the business for its continuing success. Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that if the committee feels that it is desirable to have a dwelling in this location then the reason for refusal on sequential test grounds falls away. He feels that he will be supporting the proposal but can see why officers reached the decision they have reached.

·       Councillor Cornwell pointed out that the business would need consultation with the CAA but it is not the business that is being discussed but that of a residential property. He referred to the introduction in the report on the application and feels that the application does comply with LP3. Nick Harding disagreed in relation to the CAA, it does not have any powers to remove a development that has been granted planning permission so if the CAA object to a development when consulted as it poses a risk to pilots it should not be granted planning permission. He referred to the comments of Councillor Sutton in relation to LP3 who could not have explained it better as if it is considered there is a justification for this dwelling and whether it is essential then in relation to flood risk if the answer is yes it cannot go anywhere other than this site. Nick Harding stated that if the proposal is agreed today then delegated authority would be required to apply conditions to link the operation of the dwelling to the operation of the business, making sure that the floor height of the property is above flood level, that there is no objection from the CAA and the mobile home is removed from the site after first occupation of the dwelling.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Miscandlon and agreed that the application be APPROVED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to formulate conditions.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as whilst there is not a functional need for the dwelling there is a desirable need to support the successful operation of the business and therefore the proposal complies with Policy LP3 and the sequential test relating to flood risk is not required.

(Councillors Connor, Mrs French and Purser declared, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are members of March Town Council but take no part in planning)