Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Alan Bedford, the applicant. Mr Bedford stated that he is sure that members are aware of the current difficulties that small businesses are suffering, explaining that he has 40 years in the construction industry mainly in the Fenland area working for a variety of companies. He explained that the one thing that the companies all had in common is that they needed to grow and diversify and unfortunately some businesses were unsuccessful and ceased to trade.

Mr Bedford stated that based on this knowledge it has become clear that Fen Plant requires the opportunity to explore all possible revenue streams as potential ways to expand and diversify the business and in order to achieve this, the first thing that is required is for the business to be able to expand the project range due to the fact that he has reached full capacity at the current rented location he occupies, with the proposed site being the only financially viable location in the local Whittlesey area. He added that he is proposing to reuse and repurpose existing local infrastructure which would otherwise become a derelict eyesore.

Mr Bedford expressed the view that the proposal is an environmentally friendly solution, and the proposed location offers his business the best possible chance to achieve its goals in the medium to long term which would include the potential to generate additional employment whilst maintaining all of the services in the local area, with an additional benefit being due to the fact that the site is available to purchase and in turn will give him increased financial stability. He stated that he is aware of the fact that the officer’s recommendation is one of refusal partially due to the earth bund which has been proposed to surround three sides of the location, but the reasons for the earth bund is threefold with the first reason being that it will be used for security purposes and, in his opinion, the earth bund will offer a suitable security method and be in keeping with the local area, with it being planted with locally sourced plants on completion and has been chosen over unsightly security fencing which is the only other alternative.

Mr Bedford explained that the second reason for the bund is that it will encourage the creation of additional habitats to flourish and lastly, he stated that all levels of industrial operations do generate a certain level of noise and dust and, therefore, the bund will go someway to reduce any possible impact on the surrounding area, with his business operation having less impact or no more than the current or original agricultural use. He stated that the only other reason for refusal that he is aware of is the road junction which the Highway Authority has recommended small alterations to which he has agree to and the Highway Team did advise that a small amount of land would be needed, however, that is not in their ownership, but the landowner of the field is also the owner of the land which highways referred to and he has agreed that the land in question would be included in the sale of the yard.

Mr Bedford explained that the land referred to by highways equates to approximately 10 metres of additional access. He stressed that the business that he owns is not a factory related industrial business with noise and dust and the yard would be relatively quiet and dust free and the dwelling adjacent to the yard will also form part of the sale agreement and will potentially be used as an office, rented out or even as a home for him and his family.

Members asked Mr Bedford the following questions:

·         Councillor Hicks asked whether the land at the top of the road will be included as part of the sale? Mr Bedford confirmed it would form part of the purchase.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked for clarity with regards to the purchase of the house? Mr Bedford explained that the house is owned by the same person that owns the farmyard and the whole thing is being sold in its entirety. He added that his agent has advised him not to include the house in his planning application as the initial intention will not to use it at first as part of the yard but in time it could be used as office space if the office facilities needed to expand. Mr Bedford confirmed that the property will definitely be in his ownership if the deal goes through, but the advice given to him by his agent was not to include it with the application as it will not be associated with the development and it will remain a dwelling for the foreseeable future.

·         Councillor Connor asked for clarity over the house and asked whether it is just an option to purchase it? Mr Bedford clarified that the house is included in the entire purchase and the sale of it all is dependent on him receiving planning approval in order for his business to be able to move to this new location. He added that if planning approval is refused then he will not be purchasing any of it.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he welcomes the fact that the business will be operating in a remote location which is ideal for any aggregate business with plant machinery. He added that with regards to the bunding is it unlikely to be any taller than most raised reservoirs in the area. Mr Bedford explained that it has been limited to three metres.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the possibility of living and working on the site is obviously a means of security when working with plant machinery and he asked Mr Bedford whether that is the reason he wants to live on the same site? Mr Bedford stated that he was born and bred in Coates and has lived in Whittlesey but now lives in Eastrea. He explained that it will down to his family wishes whether or not they choose to live on site, or another family member may live there, with consideration also being given to renting out the dwelling as a means of further income.

·         Councillor Marks asked Mr Bedford to provide details on vehicle movements  and asked what plant equipment he owns? Mr Bedford explained that as the current moment in time, he has a couple of transit vans, 2 transit size tipper vehicles, 7.5 tonne HGV tipper for small aggregate sales and one 8 wheel roll on roll off lorry which is used for moving the large items of plant equipment such as forklift and eight tonne diggers and dumpers along with a tipper body which is used to import the bulk amounts of aggregates into the proposed bays.

·         Councillor Marks asked whether the site in Whittlesey is to close totally? Mr Bedford explained that is the intention due to the fact that the site in Whittlesey is only a rented property and due to a significant rent increase it is no longer feasible to remain at that location.

·         Councillor Marks asked Mr Bedford whether most of the work that he has is within the Whittlesey area as he is interested to know where the vehicle movements will be? He asked whether vehicles will be driving through Benwick regularly as opposed to Whittlesey as the highways team have made that conclusion regarding the entrance to Marriots Drove? Mr Bedford stated that Whittlesey is straight on at that junction and there will be the potential for small amounts of traffic to have to turn right but the large majority of his work will be in Whittlesey and Thorney with occasional work being undertaken in Ramsey.

·         Councillor Connor thanked Mr Bedford for his honesty and made the point that it is helpful for one of his vehicles to be used for a variety of purposes. Councillor Connor welcomed the fact that Mr Bedford is talking to the owner of the land in order to improve the junction.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that it does say in the report that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the highway works required to the ditch on the eastern side are deliverable and she asked Mr Bedford whether it is his intention to fill the ditch in? Mr Bedford explained that he has spoken to the current owner of the land and yard and the remaining land has been rented out to a third party and the proposal would be that a couple of metres of the ditch would be filled in to generate the works and part of his business is to undertake work on the highways. He explained that he holds a works supervisors’ qualification and, therefore, the work could be carried out to the required standard. Councillor Mrs French asked, if part of it is going to be filled in, will it be piped in the proper manner? Mr Bedford stated that it is his understanding that it is the last 2.5 metres of a run and there is no pipe running underneath the road. He added that if there is a pipe which runs underneath Marriots Drove from that dyke then the pipe will continue, and a new headwall will be implemented.

·         Councillor Connor asked Mr Bedford whether he is happy to undertake any work to that junction as is appropriate? Mr Bedford stated that his agent has informed the planning officers that he is more than happy to undertake any works that are required to make it safe. He made the point that when he was at the site there were already articulated lorries coming from the direct of Benwick that were already turning in there and that has been the case for many years, with there never having been any need to alter that entrance.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney stated that in the report it states that the land ownership question has arisen with regards to improvements to the junction and from what has been heard today it appears that the land ownership will probably be put right, however, on previous occasions there have been situations which have arisen where the land is in a third-party ownership and the land ownership over that land has to be resolved. He asked could the application be approved and then for some reason the applicant is not able to obtain access or ownership of the piece of land required the proposal cannot be built anyway? Nick Harding stated that the officer’s recommendation is that any approval at committee today is subject to a revised red line being submitted which will go out to consultation and then the application would be brought back to the committee should there be any adverse response to it. Councillor Benney stated that the applicant needs the committee to approve the proposal in order for him to be able to purchase the site.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that if the applicant owns the deeds as part of the sale to the top of the road then that resolves the issue.

·         Nick Harding made the point that the Council are in not in control of the buying and selling of land and he added that given that physical works are required which go beyond what was included within the red line of the application it is much cleaner and more secure for the red line to be amended and to undergo a 14 day consultation but given that the land is all within the ownership of the current owner it is unlikely to come back with any negative feedback. He made the point that it is a much more secure and appropriate approach given the circumstances of the application.

·         Councillor Marks stated that if the applicant can demonstrate to the Highway Authority that the junction is already being used by HGV vehicles, will he still need to do the upgrades. Nick Harding stated that it is an option for the application to be deferred in order to obtain additional information from the highways officer to enable a decision to be made or the application could be approved subject to the revised red line to facilitate the junction improvements. He added that there is a third option which would be to ignore the advice of the Highway Officer and approve the application as it stands but he would not recommend that option.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that should the application be approved then she would not support a deferral and she would not support going against the advice of the Highway Authority as they give their advice for good reason and if ignored it could result in a detrimental impact.

·         Councillor Benney stated that if the application is approved subject to the red line revision, it is his understanding that the applicant needs to know whether the committee are going to approve the change of status of the land from agricultural land to an area to be used as a builders yard and if he does not receive approval for that then the purchase he wishes to make fails. He stated that if the application is approved, the committee accept that there is going to be a change in the legal status of the land from agricultural to building and then the applicant can proceed. Councillor Benney made the point that the applicant has already advised members that it is intention to buy the land, the house and the additional 10 square metres of land and, therefore, he has the agreement for the change in status of the land. He asked officers to clarify whether the change in red line would necessitate the need for a further application or could it be done as an amendment and in relation to the additional 14-day consultation period, whether it would be unfair to the applicant for him to suffer a delay. Nick Harding stated that it would necessitate in a new application as the committee’s resolution would be an approval subject to an amended red line that accommodates junction improvements that have been sought by the County Council.

·         Councillor Connor asked whether that could be undertaken by officer delegation? Nick Harding explained that the normal arrangement is that if there are no representations received that raise new issues that have not been before committee then it would be a delegated officer’s decision.

·         Councillor Connor stated that if the application were approved today with the only stipulation being to move the red line to get the works undertaken, how long could the process take as he would like to see it actioned in a timely manner. Nick Harding made the point that he is not in control of other people outside of Fenland undertaking those tasks that they have been commissioned to do promptly and, therefore, a consultation cannot be started until officers receive the information from the applicant’s agent. He added that the committee should consider the appropriateness of the development that is before them and not the process regarding the buying and selling of the land. Nick Harding expressed the opinion that the committee need to put aside and ignore the statements made with regards to the potential purchase of the dwelling as it does not form part of the proposal before the committee and, therefore, a decision should not be made on the assumption that the purchase is going to happen or has happened.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the access appears to be the sticking point and officers have provided the committee with the way forward for the applicant to proceed without the need for a new application.

·         Stephen Turnbull, the Legal Officer, advised the committee that it is not the members responsibility to assess and take into consideration the private transactional arrangements and that should not be seen to drive the timetable. He added that he along with members of the committee have not seen any documentation concerning the sale and purchase of the application site which is correct and that should not form part of any planning considerations as it is not relevant.

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

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that it is a good application and this type of business cannot operate in the centre of a town and the application site is very well suited for the business. He made the point that there are four reservoirs around Chatteris which are of a similar height to that of the proposed bund. Councillor Benney added that with regards to the change of use on the site, farm buildings are not used as much as they used to be, and the proposal blends itself to helping support a local business. He made the point that everything that is built affects the countryside and the bund will change the view, however, it does not mean it is wrong, it just means that it is different. Councillor Benney stated with regards to security in a rural area, he feels a bund is necessary for the type of business which is going to be operating. He expressed the view that he has no issues at all with regards to the change of use from agricultural to a builder’s yard as it is a common-sense location for the business to operate from and if the application is approved it will allow the applicant to be able to move forwards. Councillor Benney stated that with a change on the red line, which will resolve the issues concerning access, he can see nothing wrong with the application.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he agrees with the points made by Councillor Benney, and he added that the noise, dust and muddy conditions caused by builders’ yards can cause issues which in this case will be removed from Whittlesey and also benefit the other businesses which are adjacent to the current site. He made reference to the point concerning the view and, in his opinion, nobody has any type of view in that part of the Fens, and expressed the opinion that when considering lorry movements, he feels that the site is the ideal location. Councillor Marks explained that he knows of a local resident who lives near the application site who has mentioned that there are lorries accessing another business in Marriots Drove almost 24 hours a day. He expressed the view that by undertaking the work to the access point it will also benefit other residents who live in Marriots Drove  and he will look to support the application.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he agrees with the points made by Councillor Benney and Marks, and he will also be supporting the application with the condition of the red line being moved.

·         Nick Harding stated that Councillor Marks has referred to others builders’ yards that he is aware of in towns which cause noise disturbance, dust and muddy conditions and all of those aspects are going to be at the proposal site which is next door to a dwelling and there can be no guarantee that the applicant will acquire that property and he questioned whether the committee are comfortable with the stated implications with the dwelling adjacent to the site which were identified by Councillor Marks.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that he knows that the committee need to consider what is in front of them but as he understands it from the applicant all aspects of what is on the site currently will be included in the sale. He added that with respect to the proposed bund, in his opinion, it will be better than a fence as the bund will have flora and fauna on it and assist with biodiversity. Councillor Hicks added that he can see the theory with regards to installing a bund rather than a fence due to the fact that a fence can be driven through.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he is in support of the application as the Council states that it is open for business and there is an applicant before the committee who is trying to grow his business due to the fact that the current location will not enable him to do that any further as well as the landlord looking to increase the rent. He referred to a photo on the presentations screen and stated that the existing access will allow for HGV vehicles to enter as there has been existing vehicles visiting the farmyard for many years. Councillor Imafidon made the point that he is not saying that the recommendations of the highway’s officers should not be followed, however, he does not see how an aggregate site will be detrimental as the plant equipment on site is likely to be smaller that what is currently using the road. He added that the applicant is not building a new site he is only going to make use of what is already on a derelict site in its current form, and he will support the application.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he agrees with the point made by Nick Harding with regards to his statement concerning people living on site, however, the applicant has confirmed that it is a family business and it is likely that either the gentleman’s wife or his family may live there or there is also the possibility of it being used as office space which possibly takes away the issue of the dust affecting his family living there. He made the point that it comes down to the buyer being aware or if somebody chooses to rent they are going to see what is there and by having somebody living on site it is also a good security deterrent for the business.

·         Councillor Connor reminded members of the committee that there are four reasons for refusal associated with the application.

·         Councillor Benney stated that anybody who has lived on a farm or near a farm will be aware that you cannot open your windows in the Summer due to the dust and if you live in the country you have to deal with mud or dust and, therefore, anybody considering moving into the dwelling on the site would need to take that fact into consideration.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application should be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation, subject to the amendment of the red line in respect of the highway improvements which have been requested by the Highways Authority and authority delegated to officers in respect to conditions should there be no matters raised in the consultation.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that the location is the perfect place to build a builder’s yard, is a good use of land, the introduction of the proposal will not be detrimental to the area and the access to the site can be achieved by an amendment to the planning application with regards to the red line.

(Councillor Marks stated that the owner of the road in connection with this application may be known to him but he will approach the application with an open mind)