Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen explained to members that the County Council has previously refused an application involving the processing of waste on this site and further correspondence had been received from the County Council earlier today which stated that activity involving waste may still be taking place and this is being investigated by the Environment Agency and also the County Council. He explained that the application in front of members has the potential to allow for activity at the site which could be construed as waste related and, therefore, there is a significant question mark over whether the application should be determined at a District Council level and in order for this to be established it is recommended to members that the application be deferred.

Councillor Mrs French stated that it is her understanding that members should look at what is in front of them today and not what might or might not be.

Stephen Turnbull, the Legal Officer, stated that, in his view, it is more to do with good practice and procedure rather than the merits or demerit of this application as there does seem to be elements of potential waste disposal, which the County Council are investigating and given that the scope of the application is quite broad and might well include dealing with waste he agrees with officers that the sensible way to proceed is to find out exactly what is going on at the moment and what the County’s view is and defer the application and deal with the application when the facts are known.

Councillor Benney expressed the view that he cannot see what bearing the waste application has, they are two separate applications, it has been heard at County and was refused, but this application is for a builder’s yard and he feels that the committee should determine it today. Stephen Turnbull stated there is no legal reason why committee cannot determine the application today, the view that he and officers took is it is good practice to defer it because members will know more of the factual background and the view of the County as waste disposal authority. Councillor Benney stated that this application is for a builder’s yard and if there is illegal activity on that site this will be dealt with by County, this application is live, has been submitted since 2022 and he feels it should be determined today as this is looking at land usage and is this site suitable for a builder’s yard.

Members agreed to determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report.

Members received a written representation in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Debbie Fryett, in support of the application, read out by Member Services. Mrs Fryett stated that following her initialletter ofsupport she remains verystrongly in favour of this planningapplication, with the applicantsbeing nativeto thevillage ofMurrow ratherthan someonefrom outside the local area moving in. She finds some of thenegative issues raised almostamusing and thinks the Planning Committeeand local residentsshould takeinto consideration the number of businessesalready operating within the vicinityof Hooks Drove, such as:-

1.OstrichFarm

2.  DoggyDaycare Centre

3.  OriginallyABC Meats- nowa meatpacking factory

4.  Ahot tubbusiness·

5.  Farming/AgriculturalActivity.

Mrs Fryett referred to thepoint raisedregarding HooksDrove beingunsuitable forheavy trafficand HeavyGoods Vehicles, but she has livedin Murrow in excessof 30years andto her knowledge there isno visiblesignage anywhere suggesting its unsuitability, with 99%of thetime theapplicant using HooksDrove,LongDrove andCants Droveas theirpreferred route of travel as doAdapt BioGas which is alsothe Cambridgeshire County Council preferred route. She feels thereis alreadycontinuous movementof lorries, tractors/generalfarm machineryand trailersconstantly usingthe very same routebetween 6amup toand including 10pm, 7 days a week, with there being daily deliveries tothe existing businesses in Hooks Drove.

Mrs Fryett expressed the view that onefinal importantpoint toalso consideris ifthe encroachment ofCambridgeshire CountyCouncil land were to beremoved,it would greatly improvethe situation for allconcerned. In summary, sheemphatically feels thatFenland DistrictCouncil shouldapprove thisapplication andallow another localbusiness todevelop and prosper, particularly giventhe current financial climate.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that the officer’s report states that the application site was previously Grade 1 agricultural land and the applicant has advised him that the site has not been used for agricultural purposes for at least 20 years. He added that the since 2015 there has been a stable block and a menage over part of the site which can be seen on Google maps.

Mr Hall explained that the site was overgrown when the applicant moved in and the menage was overgrown and there was permission in place for eight floodlights which is no longer required as part of the proposal before the committee today. He explained that the applicant was born and has lived in Murrow for the whole of his life, he drives lorries for a living to provide for his family and has purchased grab lorries and other plant equipment for his business.

Mr Hall stated that the site falls within Flood Zone 3, however, the Environment Agency have not raised any objection to the proposal, with the proposal not including any construction or buildings. He made the point that the applicant applied for a lorry operator’s licence before moving onto the site three years ago which is still in place and the site does not have members of the public calling to purchase goods as all materials are delivered to site, with the lorries being stored on the site, leave the site to undertake deliveries or to work on sites and any waste is transported to Saxon Pit.

Mr Hall explained that the applicant undertakes emergency utilities work where there may be occurrences of burst mains, private work and work for contractors and homeowners by taking material away and delivering aggregates. He stated that the Highway Authority are now satisfied with the proposed access and position of the gates along with the visibility splays in both directions, following details from their highways consultant, with a speed survey also being undertaken and submitted to the Highway Authority, and made the point that along the same stretch of road the London Halal Meat Company is located, which was originally ABC meats and had been in operation for in the region of 35 years, and it currently has five heavy goods vehicles which visit that site each day.

Mr Hall stated that the application site is surrounded by vegetation which is all to be maintained and the area for the aggregate and the lorry bays will not be visible from the street scene. He made the point that there is local support for the application with 26 letters having been submitted from persons in Murrow, with the applicants living in one of the 5 dwellings in the area which could be seen in the presentation, with three of the other dwellings not objecting to the proposal and the remaining dwelling opposing the proposal but having reviewed its location the nearest point to that dwelling is at a distance of 50 metres away with the aggregate bays being 90 metres away.

Mr Hall stated that looking at the reasons for refusal the site is located in Flood Zone 3 but it is not proposed to build any buildings and the Environment Agency who have been consulted on the application have no objections. In terms of elsewhere location, he made the point that Murrow is classed as a small village in the Local Plan and normally limited to small business opportunities, which this application is, and people are told that Fenland is Open for Business and this is a business application.

Mr Hall stated that the Highway Authority have confirmed the access and visibility splays are satisfactory but are concerned with regard to a lack of footpath and passing places, however, there are other businesses located down Hooks Drove, Long Drove and Cants Drove so this business would not be in isolation. He expressed the view that the applicant has been running his business since 2016 and has held a lorry operator’s licence for 3 years, which he still possesses.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the applicant running the business since 2016, which is 7 years, and asked how has this business has just come to light. Mr Hall responded that previously he was at a yard in Whittlesey Road, March and he was given notice from there and moved to this site.

·       Councillor Gerstner referred to external lighting and asked if the applicant has given consideration to lighting in the area? Mr Hall responded that he discussed this with the applicant yesterday and no external lighting has been proposed but they would be happy to accept a condition so that can be agreed with officers.

·       Councillor Marks asked how many vehicles does the applicant have on his operator’s licence and is it just rigids or artics? Mr Hall responded that he believes the licence is for 5 and he has seen 4 vehicles on site all with rigid axles so he believes the licence is just for rigid axles but he is not 100% sure.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that he views this as a solid business application and feels a lot of the reasonings on this have been dealt with on other applications of a similar nature as you cannot put a lorry yard with aggregates in the middle of a town, with this being the place for this to be. He stated that his biggest concern was LP16(e) which is the adverse impact on neighbours but there is only one neighbour complaining, with this neighbour being 100 metres away, making the point that the Travis Perkins yard in Chatteris backs right up to houses, with this being an industrial yard with lorries going in and out and there is 100 metres here which is far more than you would have in a town. Councillor Benney expressed the view that anyone who lives in the middle of the Fens has got to accept noise and dust, with there being a cornfield next door to this site, and anyone who has lived near a farm will know that in the Summer when you want your windows open you Sellotape them up because of the dust that comes from the combine and when you drill into the land you get a Fen blow so anybody who chooses to live in the middle of nowhere cannot really complain about dust and vehicle movements. He expressed the opinion that the anabolic digester which is not too far away, with the one at Chatteris being fed by fast track lorries running on red diesel to provide green energy for residents, is going to be fed by tractors and vehicle movements, with the vehicle movements from this application being dwarfed by the movements that will be made to the digester. Councillor Benney stated that he has visited the site and drove down Hooks Drove and there are passing places along this drove and he passed other businesses in this area and this application is for another business that fits, in his view, very well in the area and he feels members of public must think what is going on with a recommendation of refusal on this application. He reiterated that he views this as a solid business application that employs people and brings jobs, with the neighbour being the only concern but there is a cornfield that will bring dust and noise, and a few more lorries is not going to make a difference. Councillor Benney made the point that the Council is supposed to be Open for Business and looking to drive economic growth and support local business and this is a business that needs support.

·       Councillor Purser stated that most of the points he was going to make have already been mentioned by Councillor Benney. He feels it is creating jobs and in relation to smells from industrial burning, it has been mentioned that it was previously an equestrian centre and he does know that horses can create a lot of smells so questioned what is the difference and it is actually out in the middle of nowhere anyway. Councillor Purser stated that he can support this.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that he fully supports Councillor Benney’s comments but feels that if approved conditions should be placed on it about lighting as per the Police report and also in relation to the operating hours because of the amenities of the residents.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she has visited the site and there are passing places because they did encounter a vehicle coming down the drove and turning into the site. She expressed the view that it is in the middle of nowhere and it took them a long time to find the site, with it being the ideal place for this application to go. Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that there would only be 5 lorries a day and she does not see much of a problem, the roads are not wonderful but the County Councils roads in Fenland are not wonderful anywhere. She made the point it is a business, she is glad they moved out of March because that was an eyesore and feels this is the right place for this proposal.

·       Councillor Benney referred to Councillor Gerstner’s comments regarding opening hours but he believes the agent said that they undertake utility work and with utility work that can be in the middle of the night if there is a breakdown or when you are called out so to put restrictions on this would be limiting the business in terms of utility work. He feels that general opening hours would be reasonable but for utilities this needs to be fairly open in a condition as this could restrict a business that members are trying to support.

·       Councillor Purser agreed with the comments of Councillor Benney.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he knows the area and is aware of the lorry movements in this area, with the applicant having an operator’s licence for 5 lorries and if they have worked for the past 3 years with no complaints it does not seem there is any issues regarding vehicle movements but he would be very mindful of putting restrictions on operating times as what the committee view as reasonable others may not and there may be horse boxes going up and down this road from neighbouring properties also. He would support the application, but being mindful of any time limits being applied, which he feels are not required.

·       David Rowen referred to mention of the site being in the middle of nowhere but from the plan it clearly shows residential dwellings in the immediate vicinity, it is clearly not in the middle of nowhere. He stated that there are 4 letters of objection from address points along Hooks Drove so people who are in the immediate vicinity and with respect to amenity the Council’s Environmental Health Team have objected to the application as well so they are flagging up the potential for fairly serious amenity impacts arising from the application. David Rowen stated there are also the Highway Authority concerns about the application and whether this is an appropriate application for this type of activity and the size and nature of vehicles involved. He feels the committee have to question whether they are suitably qualified to go against the professional advice of Environmental Health and Highways.

·       Councillor Marks made the point that when a business has an operator’s licence this must have had input from Highways regarding number of vehicles and vehicle movements, with it being deemed as suitable so asked why now is it being said that it is not suitable? David Rowen responded that he does not know the ins and outs of vehicle licensing regimes and all he can comment on is land use planning, with a comment from the Highway Authority saying they object to the application and it is not suitable location.

·       Councillor Benney referred to the comment about being unqualified but made the point that this is the process, it is the officers job to write reports, answer questions and offer information and members of the committee make the decision, having received training and it is why members are here, whilst members of the committee may not have a degree in Planning they are here to represent the people of Fenland and, therefore, in his view, the committee is qualified. He feels it is a strong term to use that the committee is not qualified as it their job to make the decisions. David Rowen responded that the point that he was making was that the committee has got particular professional advice from specialists in terms of noise, dust, amenity issues with Environmental Health and also professional experts in terms of highway safety, who have provided the Council and committee with their advice and if members wish to go against this that is members gift to do so but they are the professional experts.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the comments of Environmental Health and asked what does it mean as land is not being taken away from the residents? David Rowen responded that loss of amenity refers to the introduction of an industrial process in close proximity in a rural location with low background noise levels so Environmental Health have got concerns about the noise that would be generated by the development and the resultant loss of amenity of nearby residents when enjoying their property. Councillor Mrs French made the point that this is 100 metres away.

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 in consultation with the Proposer and Chairman.

Members did not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel under Policy LP3 no building is taking place in the open countryside, that the proposal would not lead to an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residential properties under Policy LP16 (e) as the distance between the working part of this site and the neighbouring property is sufficient, in relation to Policy LP15 and LP16 the site is in a rural location and a sustainable transport network cannot be created in location such as these, with the business having been in operation in this area since 2016 and under Policy LP14 whilst the site lies in Flood Zone 3 nothing is being built in this proposal as it is a lorry yard. Members feels that the reasons for refusal can be mitigated against or the benefits of the proposal override the reasons.

(Councillor Booth registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Wisbech St Mary Parish Council and when the waste application came before the Parish Council and it was recommended for refusal he was involved in that discussion but the Parish Council did not discuss this application as it was when the Queen passed away so the meeting did not take place where it would have been discussed and on that basis given the similarity between the applications and what the officers have said, he retired from the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Benney declared that he knows the agent for this application and he has undertaken work for him and also worked with him on the Growing Fenland project at Chatteris, but he is not pre-determined and will approach the application with an open mind)