Agenda item

To determine the application

The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Gavin Taylor presented the report and update to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Lee Bevens the Agent.

Mr Bevens firstly clarified a point contained within the officer’s report which refers to the adjacent site being a working farm and this is not the case, It is a

Business which occasionally throughout the year cleans and repairs farm sprayers. From discussions with local neighbours there have never been any issues with regard to noise issues from the site. He added that with regard to the officer’s report and the details of reasons for refusal, the application site is not in an area of open countryside and that there is not a developed footprint for Eastrea. In his view there have been recent approvals for developments along Wype Road which have seen frontage development like the scheme that is proposed and as the application site is located within a 30mph speed zone suggests that the site is in a built up area. He made the point there have been no objections raised for Cambridgeshire Highways. The proposal is opposite another large detached bungalow at 127 Wype Road and, therefore in his opinion, the application is not contrary to the policy in the Local Plan that the Officer has referred to.

Mr Bevens stated that the housing allocation for Eastrea had not been met as noted within the latest village threshold statement of June 12. He made the point that the site is next to a farm which is not an unusual factor in the Fens and here has been a great deal of weight to the impact of noise raised in the officer’s report but the business on site repairs sprayers for other businesses and does not carry out this work all year round with the works often carried out at other locations.

Mr Bevens stated that the issue of noise has been highlighted by the Council’s Environmental Health Team, however, this was not raised when the original application was submitted and nor was it raised when the Council approved the scheme directly to the north of the site for 6 houses at 182 Wype Road. The owners of 182 Wype Road, the farm, did not raises any objection based on noise issues for that development and only raised concerns when they visited the site on 29 May with the majority of neighbours close to the site support the application.

Members asked Mr Bevens the following questions:

·         Councillor Lynn asked for clarification over the operating hours of the farm as the officer’s report states that it is open and operational 7 days a week. Mr Bevens confirmed that the farm is open 7 days a week, but the business that operates from the farm is a mobile business and 90% of the times during the week, the vehicles associated with the business are operating away from the site.

·         Councillor Lynn asked what work the farm carries out for the rest of the week. Mr Bevens stated that, to the best of his knowledge, the farm repairs farm sprayers.

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

·         Councillor Benney asked whether officers were aware that the business appears to be more of a mechanical business rather than a working farm. Gavin Taylor stated that he was aware of the farm and its existence and the farm has no restrictions in terms of its hours of operation. Councillor Benney added that the report states that the farm is a working farm and if it is an agricultural related business where it is repairing agricultural machinery it is more of a garage than a working farm and he asked for further clarification. Gavin Taylor stated that officers from Environmental Health carried out a site visit, they reviewed the current status and the potential to cause noise and disturbance to adjacent residential development. He added that it is a business and there is commercial use of the site and if possible we would not be seeking to restrict its future use. Its current use is a consideration but also the flexibility of its future use is also a consideration.  If there are concerns over contaminated land or biodiversity, the applicant would be asked to provide further evidence and acoustic assessments, where there is the potential for noise, however, in this instance this is not available. Therefore, with this application, the potential has to be looked at which our Policy LP16 of the Local Plan states.

·         Councillor Benney asked whether an acoustic assessment was considered when the report was compiled. Gavin Taylor stated that the comments that were received from the Environmental Health team and given the issues that officers found from the development in principle it did not seem reasonable to ask the applicant to undertake an acoustic assessment of the site because potentially there are other reasons for refusal of the application.

·         Councillor Hay asked if the application before the committee today was for 2 houses, a farmhouse dwelling and an agricultural business, would it be approved? In her opinion, it would not be passed because there would be concerns over noise. Currently the business has no restrictions and we all want growth in businesses, but going forward the vehicular movements into the farm is unknown. Councillor Hay stated that she considers this location as open countryside and she believes it would be wrong to restrict the future expansion of the business which would happen if the application was approved.

·         Councillor Lynn added that when he read the report he thought during harvest time the operational hours of the farm would cause an issue, however, now he understands the type of business operating, his view has changed.

·         Councillor Hay stated that the agent is advising that it is a different type of business, however, there is no proof of this as no noise assessment has been carried out.

·         Councillor Meekins stated that, in his opinion, this application is not infill and is adjacent to open agricultural land and there needs to be consistency in the decisions made by the committee.

·         Gavin Taylor highlighted to members on the presentation screen the location of 6 dwellings that had outline planning approval agreed in 2017/18. Three of those have come forward in the northern area of the site and the layout was not committed for the southern 3 dwellings. He added that officers would expect to consider the layout in relation to potential noise issues.

·         Councillor Benney commented that there is a great deal of development on that road and questioned the location of the boundary. He added that every town and village in Fenland is in open countryside. The proposal is in flood zone 1, in his opinion, it is a good development and as you enter the village, it will look better visually to see two bungalows in that location.

·         Gavin Taylor clarified that the houses to the north of the six previously approved dwellings were approved when the Councils housing allocation policies were out of date as a result of not being able to demonstrate a five year supply of housing, so the tilted balance indicated that officers had to recommend approval for that site. Our policies currently are considered to be up to date and robust and, therefore, we do not need to move away from our housing policies of which LP12 states that sits outside of the settlement.

·         Nick Harding stated that as Gavin Taylor had already indicated the special circumstances were used at the time, when the Council did not have a 5 year land supply and the law states that there had to be a tilted balance in favour of granting planning permission. We have now demonstrated that we have a 5 year land supply and, therefore those special circumstances are no longer relevant.

·         Councillor Mrs Bligh stated that as much as she agrees with Councillor Benney’s comments, she that Whittlesey Town Council actually recommended refusal of this application. Councillor Benney responded by saying Whittlesey Town Council recommended refusal on the grounds of Cambridgeshire County Highway concerns, however, highways then revisited the plans and were in agreement with the proposal.

Councillor Benney proposed that the application be approved against officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Lynn asked that if he agreed to second the proposal and, if the application was approved, could a condition be added to ask for a suitable noise pollution test to be carried out. Nick Harding responded by saying that this could not realistically be achieved because effectively you would be approving a development proposal when you were not in fact sure whether the development would be adversely affected by noise from the adjacent development. He added that if that is a concern for members then an option to consider would be to defer the application in order for a noise assessment to be carried out. Councillor Benney asked would an alternative be to approve the application and request a condition for an acoustic barrier to be installed. Gavin Taylor stated that If there is no demonstration of noise impact it would be an unreasonable condition to add as we cannot show it is necessary. With regard to landscaping which would include any barriers including fencing are not committed with this application as it is an outline application without landscaping.

Councillor Mrs Bligh proposed for the application to be deferred, which was seconded by Councillor Lynn.

Nick Harding added that if members were minded to defer the application, the assumption would be that the committee were happy with all other parts of the proposal and it would only be the noise issue that members were unsure of. He added that members need to consider the officers reasons for refusal which relate to the fact that the development proposal in the planning officers view does not constitute infill. 

Councillor Mrs Hay stated that she is not happy for the item to be deferred. Officers have advised members if the item is deferred solely on the basis of concerns over noise, the other reasons that officers have put forward for refusal are being ignored.

Councillor Mrs Bligh agreed to withdraw her proposal and Councillor Lynn concurred.

The original proposal from Councillor Benney to go against officers’ recommendation and approve the application was reverted to.

The substantive reasons given by Councillor Benney to go against the Officers recommendation were Policy LP3, due to the fact that it states the word ‘normally’ which would indicate that there is an option to deviate in certain cases. Councillor Benney does not feel that this can be classed as linear development as in Policy LP12 (a) as it does not harm the character of the area and LP12 (b) as in his opinion the proposal is not outside the footprint of the village.

Nick Harding added that Councillor Benney has outlined the proposal which is to grant planning permission and has expressed the reasons why he feels an exception to the policy and Nick Harding asked whether an addition could be made to include that Officers have delegated authority to apply appropriate planning conditions. The Chairman agreed with this.

Councillor Hay stated one of the reasons that officers had stated were LP12 Part A (c, d and e,) and the report states ‘it would not extend existing linear features of the settlement, or result in ribbon development’. Councillor Hay added that it is exactly what this would do if the application was approved.

The proposal was seconded by Councillor Lynn and decided that the application be APPROVED.

(Councillor Bristow registered in accordance with paragraph14 of the Code of Conduct on planning matters that he was a member of Whittlesey Town Council when this application was considered. He did not take part in any discussions or vote on this agenda item)

(Councillors Benney, Clark, Connor, Lynn, Marks, Meekins, Murphy and Councillor Mrs Bligh registered in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on planning matters that they had been lobbied on this item)