Agenda and minutes

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to the officer’s report at 9.4 where it states that some marketing was undertaken which received limited interest. She asked whether officers could confirm how active the owner was in trying to find a tenant for the pub and for how long the marketing took place? David Rowen stated that detail is unknown, and the officer’s report contains the information held. He added that normally when consideration is being given to the loss of a pub or the change of use of a pub to another use, the marketing information is required in order to comply with policy but in this case as the proposal is effectively moving from one community facility to another there is less of a requirement for the marketing information to be submitted.

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

·         Councillor Hicks expressed the opinion that the Planning Officer has made the correct recommendation as pubs are unfortunately notorious for closing in the current climate and the buildings do need to be repurposed. He made the point that it is a good application, and he is happy with the car parking arrangements.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with the points made by Councillor Hicks.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he has driven past the building many times and it is an eyesore. He added that he thinks it is commendable to consider bringing the building back into use and the officer’s recommendation is correct.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Hicks and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation.

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Maureen Davis of Fenland District Council and Wimblington Parish Council. Councillor Mrs Davis stated that that this is yet another application to increase business on what was initially granted as a light industrial estate. She made the point that the continued growth and extended hours which have been granted individually to various businesses on the site are having an overall impact on the residential areas of Eastwood End, Hook Lane, Rhonda Park and Horsemoor.

Councillor Mrs Davis explained that one major concern is the current state of Law Fertilisers present site and the possibility of fertiliser leeching. She referred to the presentation screen and added that the photographs demonstrate that the site is not well kept and causes legitimate public concern that any new development will be maintained to a high standard.

Councillor Mrs Davis added that the location map demonstrates that there are a number of ditches which run adjacent to Mr Law’s properties and the leeching of fertilizer into surface water and into the ditches can prove to be harmful to the ditches, to wildlife and to humans and she made the point that both chemical and organic fertilisers can pollute both surface and groundwater. She stated that the applicant has stated, within the drainage strategy, that there is an existing ditch to the northeast of the site which currently handles all of the water and she questioned whether that statement is acceptable and with the increase in production and storage questioned whether a health impact assessment is required along with an environmental permit for the application when considering the various sites that the applicant now operates from within the industrial estate.

Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment for Cambridgeshire contains an evidence review of the built environments impact on health and has distilled the evidence into themes including generic evidence which supports the builds environmental impact on health, communities that support healthy aging and, in her view, relevant themes impacting on health and wellbeing do need to be considered. She expressed the view that proposals which ensure the future resilience of community should take into account any significant impacts on human health and well-being risk of harm to human health or safety, noise and/or vibration levels resulting in disturbance, air quality from odour, fumes, dust, smoke or other sources.

Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the Council’s Local Plan Policy LP2 makes reference to facilitating health and well-being of Fenland residents stating that development proposals should contribute to the Council's goal of Fenland residents achieving the highest attainable standard of health. She added that development proposals should positively contribute to creating a healthy, safe and equitable living environment by creating an environment in which communities can flourish promoting high levels of residential amenity, with Policies LP7 and LP16 referring to delivering and protecting high quality environments across the district and stating that any  ...  view the full minutes text for item P24/24

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 Mr Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall explained that the Gladwin family purchased the farm in 1993 together with the cottages all as one and at that time there were 420 acres now there are 1,364 acres some of which is contract farming, and it is a mixed arable and livestock farm. He made reference to the officer’s report and stated that under section 4.0 it makes reference to the planning history, and it gives a good overview of the farm, pointing out that in 1996 there was an application for the erection of an agricultural building, in 2011 the erection of a pig fattening unit and in 2019 the erection of an agricultural store which demonstrates that over this period of time there has been expansion at this farm and the applicant wants to expand further.

Mr Hall explained that the applicant has invested in a pig fattening unit which holds 1,050 pigs and to his knowledge this is only one of two operating in Fenland, with the other one being at Wood Street in Doddington, and the farm also has a contract with Warburtons, the bread company, for some of their grain as well. He stated when the application was submitted, an independent agricultural appraisal was enclosed which was carried out by Cheffins and within the Council's consultant’s comments under 9.14 it states that the need for an additional worker is marginal which, in his opinion, states that there is a need but he does not believe that the Council's agricultural consultant has visited the site.

Mr Hall added that the shed and infrastructure are already in place and are being used and this is not a new enterprise as it is an expanding long-established farm, with their appearing to be a great deal of support for the application and the Ward Councillor for the area, Councillor Dal Roy, supports the application along former member, Will Sutton, who has written a letter of support for the proposal along with Christchurch Parish Council who fully supports the proposal and they have submitted a detailed response which is in the report. He stated that the proposal will give continuity for one of the largest family farms in the area and family farms play an important role in the local rural economy, with the applicant advising him that they are also in discussions to take on a further 250 acres under contract farming.

Mr Hall stated that the proposal sites the dwelling where officers have shown in line with a row of cottages along frontage linear development in Flood Zone 2 and had it been sited to the north of the farm buildings that would fall in Flood Zone 3. He explained that the applicants have confirmed that to the north of the current farm buildings they are considering further  ...  view the full minutes text for item P25/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall explained that the officer’s report confirms that it is a brownfield site which has been in the Brownlow family’s ownership for 40 years and has long been established as a yard which has expanded over many years with the site having been used as a patio company, car dealer, furniture maker, storage, persons with banger cars, persons with reptiles, a joinery workshop and portacabins. He stated that at present as the officer's report confirms there is storage, various commercial buildings, building materials and various vehicles.

Mr Hall made the point that in the officer’s report the Highway Authority does not object to the proposal, not only to the access point but also that the visibility splays can be achieved. He added that even though the application is for Planning in Principle (PIP), consideration has been given to the fact that if the application is approved to the technical details.

Mr Hall stated that the whole site is located in Flood Zone 1, there would be associated drainage and if the application is approved there would be a requirement for an adoptable footpath to the front of a site, street lighting and widening the road, with the opportunity to allow a community benefit of the road being widened all the way along where it is currently narrow. He referred to the location map on the presentation screen and pointed out the site and the access point and explained that there have been two other delegated officer approvals here which are located where the red line is on the small section of land adjacent to the access way and along the frontage which already has PIP for residential dwellings and are located in Flood Zone 1, with extant permission under delegated approval for up to three dwellings around the corner of Creek Road to Flaggrass Road.

Mr Hall referred to the photos on the screen which displayed the existing access way which is a track, with the photo taken in December 2022 in the winter months, which shows the area to be unkept, there is standing water, and it looks very untidy and the second photo displays a Google overview which clearly shows that the site is a brownfield site, where the access is at the moment and the proposed access will be over the existing one to improve it. He explained that on the 30 July he spoke to Middle Level Commissioners regarding the proposal site and the letter they had sent out, during the conversation the riparian ditch was discussed which is located along the northern boundary and a discussion took place with regards to the discharging into that ditch a greenfield runoff rate, so it has to be attenuated through a crate system or a basin and then a discharge point, with the officer at Middle Level stating that the proposal would be acceptable,  ...  view the full minutes text for item P26/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mrs Baxter, the applicant, and Ian Gowler, the agent. Mrs Baxter stated that she is looking for a new dwelling for her family, to continue living at the same address and to continue providing support for the businesses, with at the current time her family residing with her father-in-law, and she explained that they are all involved with the businesses which are family orientated and are operated from the site where the application is proposed. She explained that her husband works in the family’s construction business and undertakes work in the local area for the local community and she explained that valuable plant equipment and materials are stored at the address along with the holiday let business they operate at the site which is becoming increasingly popular.

Mrs Baxter added that she anticipates that part of the business to grow due to the proposed reservoir and she explained that there are also cattle on site which require looking after. She stated that she is involved with the holiday let business including the arrival and departure of the guests which can be at different times of the day, and she added that she also deals with the security on the site as there have been thefts in the past of diesel and vehicles.

Mrs Baxter explained that it is the intention for the businesses and new dwelling to remain in the family’s ownership and she made the point that whilst that is not a material consideration to give planning permission, it would support local businesses and also give her family its own space.

Mr Gowler stated that there are no technical objections to the proposal, and he explained that the extended roadway to the site is due to highway visibility. He added that the need for the dwelling is due to the expanding family’s requirements and the intention is for the new dwelling to be for Mrs Baxter and her family in connection with the businesses that are already operating on the site.

Mr Gowler added that the holiday let business can mean that guests arrive either early in the morning or late in the evening which is why there is the need for somebody to be there on site. He made the point that Mr and Mrs Baxter are already living at the property and, therefore, it is not an additional home that is being sought it is for residents already living on the site.

Mr Gowler added that he notes an additional reason for refusal is appearance and he referred to the presentation screen which displays the extent of the hedging to the front of the house and the image of the streetscene shows an image which is not quite representative of what the view will be from the road as it will not be visible. He explained that the photos shown in the officer presentation displayed a large gap  ...  view the full minutes text for item P27/24

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 the business is owned by the applicant and his son, and they have operated from the brownfield site for nearly 20 years, with the business currently employing four members of staff, adding that previously he had employed six people, however, due to not being able to operate equipment at the site he had to let them go. He explained that the equipment was partly funded by the Council in 2020 and is a company which deals with engine electronics and race engine operating all over the country and world.

Mr Edwards explained that the application site has the applicants own converted dwelling to the front of the application proposal and that obscures the application from the street scene on the lane, with a recent approval for a garage block with an annex above to the north of the dwelling which should commence imminently. He made the point that he has worked closely with the planning officer and was delighted to receive an email with an officer’s recommendation for approval, which needed to be signed off and was somewhat disappointed to be then told that the application would be brought before the Planning Committee for determination with a recommendation for refusal.

Mr Edwards added that the business has operated from the site with no real issues and with the new dwelling that has been constructed to the south and the sale of the previous home of the owner to the north it has brought with it more of an issue with noise and he referred to another application in close proximity to the site which is for the conversion of an existing cold store into two dwellings. He stated that the application comes with the support of neighbouring properties, the Parish Council and other statutory consultees.

Mr Edwards added that the suggestion was made with regards to looking into carrying out a Class MA application on the building, however, in his view, it is clear that the structures are not the most attractive and the proposal which is smaller in size than the current is more appropriate and would accord with the neighbouring properties. He explained that the dwelling is to be located in Flood Zone 1 and by removing the business it will reduce the traffic flow to and from site and the applicant is looking to purchase a building on an existing industrial site which the proposal before the committee will provide the revenue to do so.

Mr Edwards stated that the proposal will also allow the applicant to have the use of all his machinery in the one location and to allow the business to progress, with at the current time he is having to use space within other businesses which is disruptive, expensive and time consuming. He explained that the applicant does not own any other buildings to operate from  ...  view the full minutes text for item P28/24