Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alan Davies 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 proposal at the site is for a shed to expand the existing business and an occupational on-site dwelling, which is not a separate residential dwelling but is a dwelling tied to the exiting business which has been at the current location since 2004. He stated that originally the business was located off of Gaul Road at a Council depot which was sold and the business relocated to its current site, being a fabrication business which makes and repairs various steelwork products which are predominantly play equipment, gates and structural steelwork and the business also works with local businesses to carry out repairs to vans, lorries and trailers.

Mr Hall made the point that out of hours working does take place and on HGV repairs and trailers which can often be an emergency repair at any time, with the work being usually UK based for the play equipment, structural steelwork and gates with the occasional component sent abroad. He explained that the HGV and trailer repair work is generally local work for local businesses.

Mr Hall stated that the application is for an occupational dwelling tied to the existing building and they wish to remain at the same location as it is established at this site rather than move the entire business which is why other sites have not been looked at. He made the point that there are no technical objections and no local objections to the application and there has been support from local businesses including Fen View Motors, Rutterford Construction and Griffin Roses.

Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen and highlighted the application site which is located on the edge of the bypass along with an application he was involved with in 2013 which was for a dwelling in conjunction with an existing HGV repair business which has been built out and is located in Flood Zone 3. He explained that there is also a site on the map which was approved in 2020 by the committee and the agent for the application had advised members that it was for persons to live on site in conjunction with the existing business and that was also located in Flood Zone 3.

Mr Hall referred to the screen and stated that the site located at the south of the map was given approval by officers in 2024 and was for an occupational dwelling in conjunction with the existing rose business. He explained that all of the areas that he has highlighted to members are located on the fringes of the bypass and added that there are no objections to the application and the business wishes to expand further by introducing the shed and also to allow a person to live on the site as an occupational dwelling rather than off site and to allow an office on the site.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that the dwelling will help to secure the business by allowing persons to live on the site as well as out of hours working including emergency call outs which is carried out at the moment.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough questioned why it was now felt necessary to build a dwelling considering that the business has been on site for twenty-one years? Mr Hall explained that there are three family members working for the business, Mr George Sharman who started the business is future proofing his business in order that one of his sons can live on the site.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked for confirmation that one of the employees of the business will be looking to live on the site? Mr Hall confirmed that it will be one of the sons who will reside in the dwelling and is employed by the business.

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

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she can see the need for one of the family members to live on the site and she would like to think that the Council supports local businesses. She made the point that throughout Fenland there are properties which are located in isolation, however, she stated that she does have questions with regards to this self-build custom design and whether or not there are any restrictions associated with that.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he would like to have seen something included in the application which demonstrates that there is a need on site, there is already a workshop on the site and if there is another workshop then that means that there is going to be more work coming. He added that workplace homes have been passed previously for people who are out in the countryside and this application is located on the other side of the March bypass, with the committee having considered applications in the past and the issue of rural security which is a very valid reason for anybody who has a business and the need for having somebody residing on the site is there. Councillor Benney questioned whether it is a self-build property and added that the building needs to be tied in some way to the business and although the workshop shed is being erected there have been previous applications where there was no justification, and the committee just took the proposal at face value. He questioned whether the business is a genuine family March business which is expanding as there is no evidence to support that fact and he would be happy to support the application if the missing information could be provided.

·         Councillor Mrs French confirmed that it is a genuine business and has been in existence and operating for 21 years. She added that she has not seen the sequential test and she would like to see further information so would be happy to see the application deferred for further information.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he agrees, and he would also like to see the application deferred as there is not enough information included with the application to make a decision.

·         Councillor Purser stated that he totally disagrees with the statement made earlier that the application is an out of character development. He added that he knows some of the family members although he has not seen them for many years and he added that they are a very hardworking family. Councillor Purser added that there have been other applications approved previously where security has been one of the reasons members have passed applications, with, in his view, it being very important to have a dwelling on site and he will be supporting the application.

·         Councillor Marks added that the committee have approved an application in New Road at the Flying Club where livestock where also on the site.

·         Councillor Gertsner stated that there have been several applications similar to the current proposal and to be consistent, he believes that further information would have been beneficial, but feels that the applicant has put forward a strong enough case.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he does not know the business but if this is a genuine business and you want to erect a shed which is double the size then that could mean that the business could be at risk of more thefts. He added that by having a dwelling on site it will help as a deterrent and with regards to the sequential test there is already a business on the site and, in his view, it is an application with need and a deferment for further information to be provided to the committee would be the best course of action. Councillor Benney added that it is not a self-build, and, in his view, it is a workplace home that should have justification, however, there is not enough information which has been provided to the committee for them to make a decision.

·         Councillor Marks asked Councillor Benney whether he was proposing a deferment. Councillor Benney stated that he would like to see the application deferred in order for further information to be provided to enable the committee to decide whether it is a proper business. He added that the application at Wisbech St Mary did not require any financial information, but some further information would provide the committee with some assurance that they are making the correct decision as at the current time there is nothing to support the application.

·         Councillor Mrs French added that there is no such thing as a policy for workplace homes as it was removed in 2009.

·         David Rowen stated that in the design and access statement there is no mention at all of the issue of security or any evidence to support that concern but the issue of whether the business is genuine or whether the employees are hardworking is not a material planning consideration. He explained that there is no real information contained as part of the application which sets out why a dwelling is required on site, why somebody needs to live on site and why it is essential that somebody lives on site. David Rowen added the application does not contain any details with regards to how the building has operated for 20 years and why is it now necessary to have a dwelling and it does not contain any information with regards to the financial viability of the business. He made the point that effectively officers and the committee are determining an application with minimal details and added that, whilst the committee may have made similar decisions elsewhere, there are examples of dwellings that have been granted tied to businesses but applications need to be considered on a case by case basis given that the ethos behind this area of planning is to respond to the needs of the specific business. David Rowen expressed the opinion that the application before the committee has very limited information on which to base any kind of positive decision.

·         Councillor Mrs French agreed that there is a lack of information, and she stated that the committee approved an application which was recommended for refusal and at that time the applicant was present at the committee and was able to respond to members questions. She added that in this case it is a shame that the applicant is not present to answer members questions, and she would like to see the application deferred.

·         Councillor Benney stated that in terms of security he feels that the application could be supported, and he added that he agrees with Councillor Purser that the application is not a blot on the landscape and the applicant is looking to expand his business. He added that he would like to see some kind of information around the business, including a business plan which shows that they are going to expand the business with the extra shed. Councillor Benney explained that the way the business operates does mean that by living on the premises they would be able to respond to the customer’s needs, and due to the nature of the business you would not want to see it located next to a house or in the middle of a housing estate. He added that it is in the right place if the criteria around it is correct which is why he would like to see further information.

·         David Rowen stated that an economy statement has been submitted as part of the application which does indicate that there will be no additional jobs created as part of the proposal. He added that there have been other instances where the committee have made decisions due to lack of information being submitted as part of the application process and ultimately it is the responsibility of the agent or applicant to provide that information. David Rowen added that he does have concerns that the committee are effectively giving applications that are lacking in information a second chance rather than incentivizing people to get it right the first time with the information.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that there are several dykes and ditches near the application site, and she attended a March Third Internal Drainage Board which is the drainage board for this area and, therefore, she does have concerns.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the committee are asking for additional information, the application submitted is not incomplete but requires additional information and the committee are justified to defer the application if they want to.

·         Councillor Benney stated that it would be very difficult to put every single possibility of information in an application as it does cost money and sometimes officers approve applications where some of the information provided is not required, however, it has cost the applicant money to obtain it. He questioned how much information an applicant has to pay for to satisfy every aspect of the application form and he suggested that maybe feedback be provided to applicants before an application comes before the committee, which could alleviate some of those issues.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the extra information will help him to inform his decision.

·         David Rowen stated that planning policy is quite clear on the tests which need to be undertaken to demonstrate that such a dwelling is acceptable and that is set out in the Local Plan and the NPPF. He added that this is not a new issue, or a new area of legislation and the tests have been established for quite some time and because of that it really is incumbent on agents and their applicants to submit the relevant information. David Rowen explained that the information provided does not comply with any of the policy boxes and, in his view, it does need highlighting.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be DEFERRED for further information to be provided to demonstrate the operating model of the business, including details of the expansion, to prove that the business is viable and to substantiate the need for the dwelling on the site including evidence to prove that the employees listed as working there actually do.

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

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

(Councillor Purser declared that he knows of the applicants and the agent is undertaking work for him, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)