Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

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.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall made the point that all consultees support this application, with the site having a previous approval for residential use under the Local Plan for an existing barn that was on the site, which was given approval for a change of use to residential but this has expired. He stated that the caravan has been on site for over 10 years and the applicant has lived here for 9 years and before this the caravan was being lived in by a separate person and during this time Council Tax and Middle Level charges have been paid and continue to be paid.

Mr Hall expressed the view that the proposal to remove the caravan with a dwelling in Flood Zone 3 would be an improvement in relation to flood risk mitigation measures which have been approved by the Environment Agency. He stated that the applicant has advised him that he has had 4 break-ins with tools and equipment being stolen and during the night-time there is regular stopping of vehicles, turning round and leaving, referring to previous meetings of the committee where it has been stated that it is better to live on site for security reasons in relation to an established business use on the site.

Mr Hall stated that the proposal has been revised as officer’s have said to include the existing shed where the existing business is being carried out and this is not for a separate residential dwelling. He made the point on the Design and Access Statement submitted and on the application form it states that the proposal is a dwelling in conjunction with the existing business, it is not a separate residential dwelling and the applicant is fully aware if planning permission is granted that he would need to enter into a legal agreement to ensure the dwelling is occupied in relation to the business use or a planning condition could be applied to ensure this is the case.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that the committee has supported applications similar to this, referring to one in July 2021, F/YR21/0552/F at Sandbank Barns, Sandbank, Wisbech St Mary was approved for an existing business and the applicant wished to live on site for various reasons, with this application being in Flood Zone 3 and is just like this proposal. He expressed the view that the proposal has the support of nearly all the properties down Hospital Road and Doddington Parish Council support the application and there have been no further objections from consultees or neighbours.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Sutton referred to the 4 break-ins that have occurred with the applicant already living on site and asked how is moving from one dwelling to another going to prevent this? Mr Hall responded that it is his understanding that when the applicant has had to go out to repair agricultural machinery and has not been on the site the break-ins have occurred, which would still be the case with this proposal.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor asked for clarification on how long the mobile unit had been on site? Mr Hall responded that the applicant has lived in it for 9 years but before he brought the site another person lived there. Councillor Mrs Mayor asked for confirmation that the applicant is definitely living in the caravan? Mr Hall responded in the affirmative and he has been paying Council Tax.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that on the site visits it is obvious that children are living on the site and asked if the children are schooled locally? Mr Hall responded that he does not know.

Members asked officers questions as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked, if the caravan has been there 10 years, is there a Certificate of Lawful Use? David Rowen responded that the caravan has been there more than 10 years and planning permission has been granted previously for it, however, they were temporary permissions as at that time the site was operated as a pheasant hatchery, an agricultural operation, and the temporary permissions were granted in connection with this, with these permissions ceasing in 2014 so for the last 9 years the site has been occupied without planning permission so the caravan has been and remains unlawful.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that this is the second time this application has been submitted and he supported it last time and, in his view, irrespective of whether it is there legally or not the caravan has been allowed to be there for 10 years and the applicant has lived there for 9 years and he assumes that no enforcement has been undertaken during this time as this would have been dealt with. He referred to the same situation in Guyhirn where there was a caravan in Flood Zone 3 and permission has been granted where there has been caravans before because it is safer in a brick building. Councillor Benney made the point that the applicant is running a business, has been doing so for 9 years and the applicant is trying to put something right with this application and as Mr Hall said there are no consultees against the proposal with Doddington Parish Council supporting it. He feels the application will just keep coming back until it is approved, it will remove a blot from the landscape and give the applicant some stability and allow him to put roots down properly.

·       Councillor Sutton disagreed with Councillor Benney’s view and expressed the opinion that nothing has changed since it was previously submitted and the applicant chooses to live there without planning permission. He feels the committee should go with officer’s recommendation as it is way out in the countryside, does not tick any boxes, it is in Flood Zone 3 and the difference between others that have been agreed to go from a caravan to a dwelling is that they had permission this one does not.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the opinion that the family are living there as it is probably far more expensive for them to move somewhere else, the applicant owns the land so does not have to buy the land and just has to build a house. She made the point that Doddington Parish Council support the application and the applicant has been paying Council Tax and queried why people are allowed to pay Council Tax and then be told that they cannot live there as, in her view, the Council should not take the money in the first place. Councillor Mrs Davis stated that when she initially looked at the application she thought no but sometimes you have to take into account mitigating circumstances.

·       Councillor Murphy agreed with the comments of Councillor Sutton and stated that when it was explained to members what the application was about his first thought was they are “pulling the wool over our eyes” as if the applicant was going to do anything about the site, in his view, he would have done so years ago.

·       Councillor Purser referred to other applications where it has been mentioned that the best form of security is living on site and whilst the applicant has had a couple of break-ins when he has not been there to allow him to live on site is the best sort of security for this.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor referred to the site inspection visit and asked if across the roadway from this property is this the other entrance to the motocross site? Other members indicated that it was not.

·       Nick Harding made the point that David in his presentation highlighted that the business use on the site is unlawful so there is no planning application for it and a house is being considered in association with a business but there is not a lawful planning consent to tie that planning consent for a dwelling to.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that the applicant has not got permission for a caravan or permission for a business, she sympathises with the applicant but feels this proposal should be refused and he could come back with a proper planning application for both.

·       Nick Harding made the point that the site lies close to the motocross track and members might be thinking why is there not an objection from Environmental Health, however, there was not an objection from Environmental Health on the previous refusal and if it is added now and the proposal goes to appeal, even if successful, it would be likely that the Council would get costs awarded against it.

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

(Councillors Connor and Mrs Davis registered, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are Fenland District Councillors for Doddington and attend Doddington Parish Council meetings but take no part)

(Councillor Benney declared that he knows the agent for this application and he has undertaken work for him but he is not pre-determined and will approach the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Murphy declared that he knows the agent for this application but he was not pre-determined and would approach the application with an open mind)