Agenda item

To determine the application.

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

David Rowen presented the report and update to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Alan Dixon (the Applicant).

Alan Dixon explained that he had been involved with the site since the age of fourteen and had been responsible for creating multiple habitats for wildlife throughout the farm. He said he was passionate about the site and his proposed plans are of a positive nature and will not cause harm to anybody. He explained that he currently runs free woodland walks on the site for members of the public, with over 550 people attending. He is keen to encourage the local community to explore the wildlife in the area and said the walks had received positive feedback from those that attended. He added that the local village school had attended the farm and he is keen to engage with them further, if planning permission is approved to expand the site. He informed members that although the planning application is for thirteen Ti-pee’s, he feels ten would be a comfortable amount for the site without impacting the surrounding habitat. He confirmed that work will be carried out to the entrance of the site in order to improve safety, if planning permission is granted.

Members asked Alan Dixon the following questions;

1.    Councillor Mrs Laws said the site visit had allowed her to understand the vision Mr Dixon has for the site. She said it was positive that he had engaged with the local school and would be interested to see this progress further. She asked for confirmation that the business element of the proposal would commence prior to the development of the dwellings, as discussed in the report. Alan Dixon confirmed this was correct.

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

1.    Councillor Murphy said Parson Drove and Church End are distinctly separate settlements and have developed in a predominantly linear form along the main road. He said the southern side of the road has remained undeveloped, as it is considered outside of the settlement boundary. He highlighted that the site is located in Flood Zone 3 and said public representation had discussed that the development would be built outside of the built-up area and would exceed the permitted limit for residential developments in the village. He said in regards to the Fenland Local Plan (FLP), the scheme does not comply with policy LP3 as Church End is another village where development is considered on its own merits, but would normally be limited in scale to single dwellings. He believes the proposed residential element of the application is not in accordance with LP12 as development would lead to the erosion of an important open-frontage and this could set an unwelcome precedent for future applications. He said policy LP16 would be contravened if the application is to be approved, as the dwellings would not make a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness of the area. He said policy LP3 restricts development in the open countryside and the proposal cannot comply with LP12 or LP16. He said the threshold for development in Church End has been exceeded and policy LP3 restricts development in Church End to single in-fill sites. He believes development of the land would lead to erosion of the frontage which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and would set an unwelcome precedent.

2.    Councillor Mrs Hay agreed with Councillor Murphy’s comments and said if the application was purely for dwellings, members would reject it on this basis. She said that whilst she would approve the tourism element of the site, she does not support the dwellings.

3.    Councillor Sutton agreed but said members should consider this a holistic application. He believes the site benefits from a natural boundary and therefore supports the application.

4.    Councillor Mrs Laws explained that if the application was purely for two dwellings, the application would be refused based on the issues raised. Whilst she applauds the projects undertaken on the site, she is concerned that the tourism element of the application does not outweigh the issues she has with the residential development aspect.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Sam Clark and decided that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation.