Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Rashid Khan, the applicant. Mr Khan stated that he purchased the property some time ago and ran it as a function centre, but business declined and he had to close it down. He added the building has deteriorated and the building is in much worse state than the photos in the presentation portray, it has been subject to arson and a third of the building has been burnt down.

Mr Khan advised that he has tried to undertake other commercial activities on the site and has tried to sell it, which has all amounted to nothing so he was frustrated and did not know what to do with the property and thought the best way forward was to go for residential planning. He stated that he ideally wanted about 6 units to give opportunities for 6 families to live here as the site is big enough and has a large car park but he was advised by his architect that having 6 small units would not be acceptable and there would be more of a chance with one dwelling so with limited options he decided to go ahead.

Mr Khan stated that the proposal is for one four-bedroomed detached house with a double garage and it is consistent with the next door neighbours property duplicating what is on their land. He made the point that as the site is commercial the Council are not prepared to allow him residential but the neighbours knocked down their house and replaced it with another dwelling.

Mr Khan stated that he has undertaken an ecology report with the result being that there is no danger to wildlife and the Environment Agency are happy stating that there is no objection to the planning application as long as it is taken into account that it lies in Flood Zone 3 and allowances are made for this, such as mezzanine floors. He expressed the view that there is no detrimental effect on air quality, no parking issues with the plot being large enough for off-road parking and having a turning circle and room for loading and off-loading and he would provide washing facilities to make sure the roads are not muddy and comply with all the conditions that would be necessary to build this property.

Mr Khan expressed the view that he is not offending any neighbours and the proposal should not affect anyone else, having been an unused site for 11 years and feels it makes sense to get rid of the eyesore and it be replaced with something decent, being in line with the rest of the street and trees and he feels he is improving the situation rather than making it worse. He hoped that members would look at the situation compassionately and grant planning permission.

Members asked questions of Mr Khan as follows:

·       Councillor Imafidon referred to it being partially burnt down and asked how long it had been on the market and if planning permission is granted and the site is developed what are the plans, is it going to be sold on the open market or is he going to live there himself? Mr Khan responded that it was on the market for 1½ years 5-6 years ago and on this particular site there is a mobile home in which Mr and Mrs Fisher live in, who are the ones that sold him the plot in the first place, and whilst it was on the market when people went to visit the property the responses came back very negative and he feels they may have been putting buyers off and they then offered him 15% of what he had paid for the site but he could not afford to sell it at this price. He added to get into the site there is a gate and the gate is controlled by Mr and Mrs Fisher because they live there, he does not live there and lives in Luton, and when he was running the function centre he came up every weekend but since it has been derelict there is no real need for him to come to the site. Mr Khan expressed the view that if this property had been in Luton it would have been doing very well as there is a lot of demand for these venues but it is too far to ship people by coach so he did not have many options here. He stated he would like the land to be used properly, it should not be derelict and had asked the Council if they wanted to do anything constructive with his land, such as a Covid centre, but has been hitting a brick wall everywhere he has gone.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she knows this site exceptionally well and it was a very well used function room for many years and she thinks the last time there was a very large function there was in 2001/2 when there was the fundraising event for the tsunami and it has not been used since then and certainly not within the last 15 years. She made the point that it is a brownfield site, an absolute eyesore and needs demolishing and, in her view, this proposal would actually enhance the area and there are other brand new properties along Whitemoor Road and she cannot see a reason to refuse it.

·       Nick Harding stated that once you get past the railway crossing heading away from March the only new dwellings are the barn conversions and those properties have benefited from a barn conversion consent and they have subsequently flipped those to the construction of a brand-new dwelling, which they are able to do under the fallback position. He advised that when it comes to barn conversions the Government’s own policy says that the issue of flood risk as a matter of principle, ie the sequential test, is not a material consideration that can be taken into account in the determination of those applications. Nick Harding expressed the opinion that a significant section of this road contains no brand-new dwellings and the new dwellings that have been consented are all concentrated in the Peas Hill part of the road and this site lies in a countryside location. He made the point that this is a site with a dilapidated building and he would not argue that getting rid of a dilapidated building and putting something nice, shiny and new in there is a betterment, however, it is potentially encouraging people to not look after their property to the degree that they should and they are hoping that committee and officers will be sympathetic to the fact that they have allowed a building to become run down and are wanting to replace it with something else which is contrary to policy. Nick Harding stated that if the site is in a very poor condition then an application needs to be made to demolish the building and clear the site and maintain the site in a reasonable condition.

·       Councillor Marks asked if the proposal had been submitted to the Council for a barn conversion as it could loosely be described as a barn would that have received more favour? Nick Harding responded that no because it is not in agricultural use and has never been so would not qualify to be considered under the Part Q Prior Notification route.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated it is not a barn but if you were inside you would think you were in a barn.

·       Councillor Benney expressed the view that barn conversions and agricultural buildings are outdated as businesses are businesses and agriculture seems to get special treatment in this area, it is not a big employer, it is big business that runs on subsidies and businesses that have to stand on their own do not get the support that farming does and he does not see why farming should be treated in any other way. He does know the building and it needs something doing with it and whilst it is in Flood Zone 3 so is all of Benwick, Turves and Wisbech and you are able to build in Wisbech and you can mitigate against the risk referring to a property that was built in Manea. Councillor Benney stated that sometimes there is public benefit on putting a house on a site and if something is not done with the site it will just get worse and where else do you build big houses as they fit and work in this kind of location and he feels it will make a very nice home for somebody.

·       Nick Harding stated that the answer to the condition of the building is that if it so run down then the owner needs to be either improving it or removing it, redeveloping it is not the only answer. He made the point that the Council has adopted planning policies, this is an open countryside location, it is nowhere near an adjacent settlement boundary so the policy is against development in this location when it comes to a general residential property as it is not for agricultural purposes so there is no justification and in terms of flood risk the sequential test cannot be ignored, it is either passed or not and the fact that a higher floor level can be built does not pass the sequential test.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he struggles with this application as you can see from the photographs there is a house to the right and also a mobile building which he guessed has already got planning permission for residential and, although he understands the owner can demolish it, it is an asset and something will get built there he presumes. He stated that in relation to flood risk if the application was approved he is sure there would be mitigating circumstances to ensure the property does not flood but the two beside it would flood before this one.

·       Nick Harding stated that the house to the right hand side of the plot would most likely pre-date planning of 1947 and the static to the rear was granted in 2004 before planning had any notion about dealing with flood risk so committee cannot say that the properties either side have got consent and, therefore, this proposal should be fine as well on flood risk grounds as it is a different era in terms of knowledge and policy and the latest policy has to be applied.

·       Councillor Marks agreed with this but what is being said is that any new property would have mitigation so a way forward is being placed on today’s legislation so hopefully it does not flood.

Proposed by Councillor Benney to refuse the application as per officer’s recommendation but no seconder was forthcoming.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Imafidon 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 there are already two properties either side of the site, it is removing and replacing a building and will provide a betterment to the area which outweigh Policy LP3, with this policy supporting development in rural areas, the scale of the proposal will be keeping with the area and will not harm the character or the appearance of the area so complies with Policy LP12(d) and in relation to Policy LP14 the flood risk can be mitigated against and the sequential test should not be applied as the proposal will provide betterment of the site, is removing an eyesore and bringing another much needed house into Fenland.

(Councillor Connor declared that he was pre-determined on this application due to the comments made in calling in the application to committee and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.  Councillor Marks took the Chair)

(Councillor Mrs French declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a member of March Town Council but takes no part in planning)

(Councillor Hicks did not take part in this application)