Agenda item

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Steve Count, District Councillor. Councillor Count stated that there are some similarities and differences with the earlier applications that have been considered today, with the first difference being where security was raised but the nature of that business is very different to this one. He expressed the view that one of the main differences he sees on this application in terms of security is that this is at the end of a very long dead end and criminals might be lazy but they are not inherently stupid and it is known from the Police that they do not often choose to go to dead ends specifically when it is that remote and easy to close off.

 

Councillor Count hoped to bring out why the application should be refused in line with the officer’s recommendation, one of the obvious reasons is the sequential test for Flood Zone 3, which this fails on, and it is a simple and easy way to continue to say that this is unsuitable. He expressed the opinion that part of the reason this is in front of committee today is that there is a farming use assessment trying to justify the need for a dwelling but when the assessment is analysed it starts falling apart, with the need for security according to NPPF being very different to what is actually happening on the site, for example there is no livestock or envisaged livestock which is one of the core reasons it might be approved and security is shown in the assessment but this is no longer a substantial valid reason to approve.

 

Councillor Count expressed the view that there are no crime records for this site, which has been brought out by correspondence with the Police who have confirmed this by e-mail. He feels there are a number of planning policies this proposal contravenes including the one relevant to building in the open countryside and the officer’s report is correct in all respects but feels the Highways report from the County Council has fallen down as an application for the paddock which is on the same strip stated that there should be no further intensification of traffic on this road but they have not made those comments on this application.

 

Councillor Count expressed the opinion that a 2½ thousand tonne barn takes 337 vehicular movements to fill and unfill down a single track road bordered by a drain all the way along, with no passing places and there are paddocks along here and a livery yard around the corner on Flaggrass Hill and he is surprised that Highways did not put that comment into this application. He stated that Highways after submitting their no objection description did submit in a subsequent e-mail that they considered this for the storage of machinery only and did not consider regular crop movements and he is disappointed that the County Council did not revise their comments considering that is contained in e-mails later on.

 

Councillor Count stated that he agrees with the principle of supporting farms and farmers and he even supports the principle of more housing, but it has to be the right application in the right place. He advised that he represents March North where this site lies, having been a representative since 2011, 14 years, and in those 14 years the one area of March that he gets the most difficulties with is here, being called out because of problems turning the corner, by the Anglian Water spillage of the sewage that is transported down there with Anglian Water having now doubled the capacity and they are delivering what they call cake, which is foul smelling human excrement, trying to limit that to every 10 minutes and they are failing and this is traffic that is going past the residents that live there, it is enough and there should not be any more issues for residents here.

 

Councillor Count expressed the opinion that it is a bad application, it is a great idea to have extra housing, but this is the wrong application in the wrong place. He hoped that committee would support Councillor Hicks and himself, local councillors, who are opposed to this proposal.

 

Members asked questions of Councillor Count as follows:

·       Councillor Marks expressed the view that the crux of this seems to be around crime and reference has been made to an e-mail, does Councillor Count have a copy of that e-mail saying there are no crime numbers? Councillor Count responded in the affirmative and with the permission of the Chairman it can be circulated. He stated that being a councillor and saying something out of order means he could be referred for conduct proceedings and he has seen the e-mail and that is what is says and he has also seen the e-mail from Highways saying they had not considered crop movements.

·       Councillor Marks referred to mention of Anglian Water movements every 10 minutes and asked if this was day and night, 7 days a week? Councillor Count responded that it is daytime and weekends and whilst it is limited to every 10 minutes, Anglian Water fail on this which is why he gets involved and up until 4 years ago they were delivering waste in open lorries, it is an appalling smell, and residents are unable to have barbeques. He stated that he does not wish anything more on the residents.

·       Councillor Marks asked for clarification that the transits down the road pass the T junction that turns up past the chicken farm and then goes further down so two lorries can meet each other quite easily and then one has to start reversing? Councillor Count responded that lorries come down Estover Road onto Creek Fen, with Estover Road being mostly two-way but with parked cars there is some stopping and starting, the single-track road is where it turns left down to School Grounds and then there are no passing places. He feels that where Creek Fen starts up to the turning to the site is also single track, with the only passing place being in the front of somebody’s drive, which, in his view, is unacceptable. Councillor Marks asked if this is just lorries and not agricultural traffic, such as combines? Councillor Count stated that he isolated that because of the impact but there are also horses with the trailers, ordinary traffic down to individual houses as well as agricultural traffic.

 

Councillor Connor asked if members wanted to see the e-mail that Councillor Count referred to regarding the crime numbers? Councillor Marks stated that if it is a letter that is dated yesterday or recently that is the most up-to-date information so it cannot be argued that there is crime or not in this area. Councillor Count stated that the e-mail is dated 8 January 2026. Councillor Connor suspended the meeting for 5 minutes so that the e-mail could be circulated and read.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Tim Taylor, District Councillor. Councillor Taylor stated he was not sure about the position with the crime numbers as he has got an e-mail with crime numbers on it, two particular numbers on two separate dates, 12 January 2024 and 6 September 2024, and those crimes totalled £64,000 of theft. He stated that he was in attendance representing the farmer as Chairman of the Farming Committee, with his job being to assist and look after farmers.

 

Councillor Taylor expressed the opinion that one of the reasons for the house is security after several break ins but at the same time if the new building goes up where it is it is going to be full of grain and crops and there will be potential drying facilities, which could be ground dryers or air dryers so there is a significant potential fire risk. He acknowledged that there is already one shed on the site, which at the moment is being used for either crops or machinery but one shed cannot be used for both as if you are caught storing machinery in the shed with cereals and crops then it could result in the loss of the red tractor status which means there is no way of selling the products.

 

Councillor Taylor expressed the view that machinery needs to be undercover as most of it is now computer controlled so electrics being outside is not beneficial and bearings on machinery seizes up on the outside when it is being used so there could be a lot of repairs before work is undertaken. He noted that the officer’s comments say that there is land 15 miles away, he has land 42 miles away from where he lives, but farmers get land wherever they can get it from or swap with other farmers at times for crop rotation so there is a multitude of reasons why farmers have land in different places.

 

Councillor Taylor stated that the Government have made a mess of the farming industry, they are advising farmers and assisting them to diversify, which could mean many things within the farming industry, with some people taking up contract farming. He expressed the opinion that the application is for security for the house by having someone on site because of the break ins and the potential fire risks of the grain store and the shed that products are stored in.

 

Councillor Taylor referred to comments that it is in the middle of nowhere but questioned where else would a farm be built, it would not be in the centre of town so it has to be on the outskirts of nowhere. He stated that he has experienced people trying to steal from his farm and he does have cameras linked to his phone so security is a big thing.

 

Councillor Taylor referred to transport and lorries, he averages 150 lorries a day going past his house to the factory which means 150 coming back out again and this is only on a narrow track so if applications are refused on lorries having to use small roads he questioned what is going to happen, is a compulsory movement order going to be placed on every factory in the area on small roads? He feels as Chairman of the Farming Committee, who has to work to try and keep all the farmers happy, the middle of nowhere is an ideal place, security is essential but he does recognise that it is not the best of roads.

 

Members asked questions of Councillor Taylor as follows:

·       Councillor Marks stated he has a farming background and was interested to hear the words corn, wheat and then crops used and asked what other crops he thinks could be stored in that barn? Councillor Taylor responded that, as far as he is aware, that farmer grows predominately wheat and sugar beet, with the sugar beet not going inside. Councillor Marks asked if it could be potentially potatoes or anything else going forward? Councillor Taylor responded that he did not think potatoes would be stored in the barn unless it had been altered to a potato store to make it a more ambient temperature with a foam lining and he is not sure whether a lining is going on the inside of this building or whether it is just a building, but he cannot guarantee anything. Councillor Marks stated that the tonnage may be different with potatoes which could mean more vehicle movements as well instead of what has been heard of 300 plus and bearing in mind the store could be filled three times in two years as opposed to once a year if it were a different crop and asked if he agreed? Councillor Taylor responded that he did not think so unless it went potatoes solely then there could be a lot of ins and outs and refill but looking at the design of the building he does not think the eaves are right to make it into a potato store as he has one shed which has a peak to store potatoes in so he thinks it will be used for cereal. Councillor Marks made the point that, as has been said, farming is in such a state and farmers will grow whatever product they can make money out of so today it could be corn but next year it could be potatoes and the year after another product so there is not a cast iron guarantee it is just going to be corn so the volume of traffic could go up depending upon what is stored here.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the mention of fire risk, he has been involved with drying corn and has never known a barn catch fire so asked where does the fire risk come from? Councillor Taylor responded that the only time he has seen one catch fire has been when somebody decided to switch the batch dryer on to dry some linseed and that did not go very well. He added that anything could happen, the climate is changing and if it comes in too moist it could predominantly heat up and there are many things that could happen. Councillor Marks stated that he will go with the could, however, unlikely but he does recognise that haystacks can catch fire if they are put away wet but feels it is an excuse to say it could be a fire risk for a reasoning to be on site.

·       Councillor Marks referred to tractors needing to stand inside because of computer chips, but he is sure as you come through Coates and Chatteris there are numerous tractors that stand out year in year out at tractor dealers and they do not seem to come to any harm and tractors are now steam cleaned so he is confused as to that comment. He understands that Councillor Taylor might say that they can get damp and get rats in them but this is not a security issue to erect this building, and he does not see why someone needs to live on site. Councillor Marks referred to an article that he read regarding hill farmers who are living a long way away from people and the suicide rate goes up because there is nobody else about so he does not believe the scenario of why a house is required coupled with the roads that have been spoken about. Councillor Taylor responded that he is not talking about the tractors having to be stood inside or outside, but it is things like drills, which once used the bearings and wheels become full of dust so they are pressure washed and there is moisture in the bearings before they are left outside and they are better off undercover. Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that he was taught that once you had used it, you clean it and grease it for next season, which applies to combines, drills so whether it stands inside or outside or under a lean to, which most Fenland farms have, he still does not buy that a tractor shed is needed.

·       Councillor Connor expressed disappointment regarding the reports from the Police as it has been said that there were two complaints made to the Police in 2024, but all members have read that there has been nothing in the last couple of years. He feels security issues are a big issue and living on site can be imperative but there needs to be some evidence to back up the need and he has no comfort over why this proposal should be built and security is needed on site. Councillor Taylor expressed the view that it is known what the Police are like, farmers do not ring in every time there is a problem because it is known that it is a waste of time but the two crime numbers he does have are valued at £64,000 of theft that took place in 2024 and whether there has been anymore he does not know.

·       Councillor Connor asked where are the tractors and machinery stored now? Councillor Taylor responded that a lot of it is outside unless the crops have been taken out of the shed then they can go inside. Councillor Connor asked for clarification that this is stored outside on the site? Councillor Taylor confirmed this to be the case.

·       Councillor Marks asked if the applicant has any farms or farm buildings elsewhere? Councillor Taylor responded that he has land elsewhere but no buildings that he is aware of, making the point that he does not personally know the applicant.

·       Councillor Marks asked if the applicant is a member of Cambridgeshire Countryside Watch because he has not seen anything come through that there have been break ins and that is the quickest way for everybody within the farming community to know what has been going on locally. Councillor Taylor stated that he was not aware.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Dennis Spears, an objector. Mr Spears stated he is a resident of Creek Fen and he is at committee representing objecting residents. He expressed the view that this application has inaccurate, inconsistent, missing and misleading information with an overall lack of transparency and he feels it is shocking that Highways have not understood or even considered the traffic statistics that will have a substantial negative impact.

 

Mr Spears expressed the opinion that 2½ thousand tonnes of crop storage is a minimum of 337 HGV movements passing their doors with no limitations and on-site crop storage will effectively double and, therefore, so will heavy HGV traffic. He feels the scale of the development is excessive compared to the actual size of the site, which is effectively a small holding and this amount of traffic will have a detrimental effect on so many local lives on a daily basis.

 

Mr Spears expressed the view that noise and air pollution from HGVs will increase substantially and their driveways are already being used as passing places, with Creek Fen being a single track road, having no footpaths, no passing places, no street lights and is a no through road, being a dead end. He stated that the safety of pedestrians, dog walkers, runners and horse riders from local livery yards is seriously compromised, with there already being a significant increase in Anglian Water HGVs and a negative environmental impact with vehicles encroaching into natural habitats for the wildlife.

 

Mr Spears made the point that there are two small roundabouts to navigate and the town’s playing field is located in this area and the safety of public spaces should not be compromised. He expressed the view that roads, verges and dyke sides are already collapsing away with the increased potholes and there has already been a substantial increase in HGVs from this site including industrial plant movements, ie a heavy crushing machine, and the negative impact on the highways and the environment is clear to see.

 

Mr Spears expressed the opinion that unnecessary and avoidable HGVs should not be brought into this area and he feels there is no real essential need to live on site, there is no livestock, there is no 24/7 critical controls and access to the site is limited along a narrow access track situated between two properties with no through access, with the site being gated and not easily accessible. He expressed the view that statistically large machinery, ie the crusher, which is a huge machine is not easily or generally targeted and would be difficult to remove from this site.

 

Mr Spears stated that they are a vigilant neighbourhood with members of Cambridgeshire Countryside Watch and as confirmed by the Police Crime Prevention Team as seen by the e-mail received there has not been any burglaries or break ins in the last 12 months and also confirming overall crime for the past 2 years appears to be very, very low. He expressed the view that there are numerous properties for sale within one mile of the site which would be much safer for a family rather than an isolated area accessed only over a large main drain, close to dykes and a river and arable land should not be taken out of crop production for unnecessary buildings, with the land also located in Flood Zone 3.

 

Mr Spears stated, in summary, the existing store was built for agricultural use and, in his view, there is on-going unauthorised commercial operations from this building and it is clear to see from public view that the site has a blended use outside of agriculture. He stated that the vast majority of objections come from local residents who know and live in this local area and whilst they acknowledge Fenland is Open for Business and they appreciate the way the Council supports farming generally, but, in his view, it should be in the right place at the right time and this application does not even service fields that are in Fenland.

 

Members asked questions of Mr Spears as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the mention of dykes and asked if he knew who they owned them? Mr Spears responded that he believes they belong to Highways.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked what commercial use is being carried out at the site currently? Mr Spears responded that there is currently there is a huge stone crushing machine which is being transported out of the site and being stored in the building. Councillor Mrs French clarified that the stone crusher is in the yard and moves out to go somewhere else to crush. Mr Spears confirmed this was correct.

·       Councillor Connor stated that Highways have still advised in the officer’s update that there is no objection on grounds of agriculture but if used for crushing or taking crushing material away they would probably have a different view but this would come under Cambridgeshire County Council’s responsibility and members need to look at the application before them today which is for a shed and a house on the site. Mr Spears responded that the crushing machine is stored in the barn.

·       Councillor Marks asked for clarification that the crusher is stored in the barn which is for agricultural use, but it is believed that it is used for industrial use off site. Mr Spears confirmed this was correct.

·       Councillor Connor asked if this is conjecture or he has actual proof? Mr Spears responded that he has seen the machine come out of the site and travel down Creek Fen.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked how many times does the crushing machine come out of the site, weekly or monthly? Mr Spears responded that he has no idea, he has seen it coming off the site, but he is not always home, making the point that, in his view, a lot of operations are happening at the site but it is not being monitored.

·       Councillor Marks questioned that it is being said it is an illegal crusher being stored in an agricultural building which is believed to be industrial and asked if there are any actions being taken by the relevant authorities regarding this crusher? Councillor Connor stated it would need planning permission for a waste site from County Council, and he is not sure whether there are any enforcement issues at all related to the site. Councillor Marks stated that is what he is asking is there any enforcement issue? Mr Spears responded not that he is aware of and feels they have a free hand to do what they like.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Penney, the agent. Ms Penney stated that this is an application for a dwelling and storage building, not an expansion to a business or the generation of traffic, and this is an agricultural enterprise within a rural location which, in her view, is what planning policies require. She expressed the view that this application is a policy-led resubmission and is now supported by a detailed agricultural appraisal carried out by Brown & Co, and it should be assessed against policies of the Local Plan together with Paragraph 84A of the NPPF, which supports isolated homes in the countryside where there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work.

 

Ms Penney expressed the opinion that the appraisal clearly demonstrates a genuine requirement for 24-hour on-site presence arising from both essential functional need and site security. She stated that School Grounds Farm handles significant volumes of high value crops, approximately 1,500 tonnes of sugar beet and 1,500 tonnes of fodder beet valued at around £85,000 are already stored on site and must be covered and uncovered at antisocial hours to prevent frost damage or overheating.

 

Ms Penney stated that hauliers access the site from early in the morning requiring an on-site presence to manage loading and access and in addition around 900 tonnes of cereals worth approximately £250,000 are stored and conditioned using fans, which can operate continuously depending upon moisture levels. She added that fertilizers and agricultural chemicals are stored and delivered on a just in time basis requiring immediate secure receipt and supervision and these operational requirements cannot be managed effectively from an off-site location.

 

Ms Penney expressed the view that alongside this functional need there is a demonstrable security requirement following repeated break ins, thefts of specialist machinery components and unauthorised access and whilst security alone may not justify a dwelling she feels it further supports the essential functional need which is clearly evidenced. She referred to Policy LP12d and e, making the point that whilst dwellings exist in March none provide accommodation that meets the operational needs of this enterprise and what is required is not simply a house nearby, but a family sized dwelling with a dedicated office space integrated into the farmyard allowing a permanent 24 hour presence and immediate response, with a dwelling several miles away not being able to function as an effective operational base for a farming enterprise of this scale.

 

Ms Penney expressed the opinion that once the principle of the dwelling is accepted, sequential and exceptions tests are passed as the dwelling must be located at the farm it serves. She made the point that the Environment Agency raises no objection subject to conditions satisfying Policy LP14 and Chapter 14 of the NPPF.

 

Ms Penney expressed the view that the dwelling is located within an existing cluster of agricultural buildings, it does not encroach into the open countryside and causes no visual amenity or landscape character issues, fully complying with Policy LP16. She feels that despite the objections received there are no highways issues and the Local Highway Authority raises no concerns and this is noting that part of their remit would include the impact on the local highway network.

 

Ms Penney made the point that the stone crusher is a separate issue and is not part of this enterprise, it has an environmental permit and falls under the County Council’s jurisdiction. She expressed the opinion that taken as a whole the proposal accords with local and national planning policy, supports a viable and expanding rural enterprise and justifies a permanent 24-hour on-site presence and requested that the application be supported.

 

Members asked questions of Ms Penney as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked what is different in this application to the one that was refused 11 months ago? Ms Penney responded that it was previously refused on the principle, but this application has been resubmitted with an agricultural appraisal to provide the factual detail.

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that most farmers do not need permission for an agricultural building they can just put their certificate in and she is surprised that the two have been put together, a dwelling and the agricultural building, because she does not think there would be any problems with the agricultural building. She asked why they are linked and the application had been submitted that way? Ms Penney responded that for non-planning professionals the planning process is quite daunting and it was a case of putting everything in in one go to get it all sorted at one time.

·       Councillor Murphy asked how long the business has been in existence, as it is now, without security? Ms Penney responded that she understands it is five years and there has been the security issue which occurred in 2024, which was in the middle of the running of the business. Councillor Murphy questioned that it is once in five years. Ms Penney stated that there were two incidences that were recorded in 2024 and she has been told that there have been other occurrences, but they are not always reported because reports to the Police are not always fruitful.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the mention of fertiliser being stored on a just in time basis and asked where it is stored as if there are already crops on site they cannot be stored together due to cross contamination. Ms Penney responded that she was not sure.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the mention of fodder beet and beet and covering it up but as far as he is aware the sugar beet factory and most customers give someone at least 24-48 hours’ notice when they are sending lorries in and they do not just turn up. He asked why there is the necessity to live on site as there are plenty of farmers and farm workers who do not live on site and there was reference to lorries arriving early in the morning and if they arrive on a Winter’s morning down that road that is a major concern to him. Ms Penney responded that they are not looking to expand the business so what is happening currently is not going to change so in terms of lorries arriving at this moment of time they can arrive at any time anyway. She expressed the view that the benefit of being on site is this can be controlled, they could be booked in because there would be somebody there at any time and there are a lot of things in play here which would require a person to be on site, such as monitoring, being there to receive goods and the security issue as well. Councillor Marks made the point that this is already happening so why is there now a necessity for someone to live on site?

·       Councillor Marks made the point that the Brown & Co report is produced for the applicant and they are being told and given that information by the applicant. He stated that he has read the report 3 times, the first time he read it he could see from both sides, the second time he felt there was a lot of stuff in the report that is not said as well regarding vehicle movements and his concern is that this application does not make any sense because why does somebody need to live on site, the business is already up and running and there is also thrown into the mix a crusher and asked is this not more an industrial operation being hidden under the disguise of agriculture? He recognises that diversification is needed and has heard there is a licence for the crusher but questioned whether this licence is from this premises? Ms Penney responded that she can only give members the information she is privy too, which is that it is an agricultural enterprise, it deals with crop and she is also told there is a crusher on site but it does not operate on site, it leaves the site to operate at other sites and it has a permit to do so. Councillor Marks stated that it is a pity that the applicant is not present to answer these questions which again raises alarm bells to him.

·       Councillor Connor asked where the applicant lives now, how far from the proposal site? Ms Penney responded that she is unaware of where he lives but this application is for the manager of the site not the applicant. Councillor Connor made the point that it is currently a working business, so the fertiliser and materials have to go somewhere so where does it get stored now? Ms Penney responded that she is not able to answer this and feels that there are a lot of questions which would be better being answered by the applicant and if it is something members want her to go away and find out, giving her a shopping list, she is able to do that. Councillor Connor stated it is unfortunate that the applicant has not taken the time to attend and answer some of these questions as the proposal does not fill him with too much comfort and by being present the applicant could probably alleviate some of members fears.

 

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Marks asked if it is believed that the crusher is licensed to work from School Grounds Farm? David Rowen responded that there is nothing that indicates that the information is incorrect, but it is not material to the determination. Councillor Marks expressed the view that if the site has got some industrial use it changes the situation. David Rowen stated that there is no planning permission from Fenland or the County Council for commercial use at the site, this application is for agricultural purposes and if it is not used for agricultural purposes, it would be an enforcement issue. Councillor Connor added that if it was an industrial use it would come under the County Council and would have to have the appropriate planning permission for that use to continue. He added that he is not aware whether it is illegal.

·       Councillor Marks stated that it does seem from what is being said that the crusher is stored on site and it worries him where this permit has been issued and whether that is correct because it does change whether it is an agricultural site or it is a multi-use site. Councillor Connor stated that the officer has answered this to the best of their ability.

·       Councillor Benney asked if this was just an agricultural building could this just be erected under a 28-day notice? David Rowen responded that without assessing against the regulations he is not sure, but it has not been submitted as a prior notification, it is part of this planning application.

 

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she used to be one of the County Councillors for this area from 2017 to 2025 and she received 100s of complaints from about 2022 about the disgusting smell from Anglian Water and the movements up and down that road. She believes there was an enforcement in 2023/24 but is not sure what it was for. Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that if there had been separate applications it would be a different case as she always supports local businesses and local farmers when she can, but she does have concern about the residents of Creek Road and Creek Fen who are suffering horrendously.

·       Councillor Murphy expressed the view that the officer’s recommendation is correct.

·       Councillor Marks expressed the view that there are numerous problems with this application and he cannot support it. He recognises that farming is in a poor state, but the residents also have to be taken into account. Councillor Marks stated that he feels sorry for the agent having to field questions on her own and the applicant should have been present to field some of those questions.

 

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Murphy and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per officer’s recommendation.

 

(All members present declared that they are fellow councillors of Councillors Count and Taylor)

 

(Councillors Mrs French and Purser registered, 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)