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)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Victor Aveling, a supporter. Mr Aveling stated that he said he would speak in support of the application as he probably knows more about this site than anyone as it was part of Eastwood Farm, which he farmed for many years and eventually Fengrain decided it would be a nice place for them to build a grain store as it was central for their members and the soil type is ideal as it has a very good bearing capacity. He stated that the application was approved, which was before the Isle of Ely Way was constructed and Fengrain used the old railway line as an access so they could get to the Manea Road.

Mr Aveling advised that eventually when the Isle of Ely Way was constructed several people came to him asking if they could buy some land for a small industrial use and he approached Fenland and the Industrial Development Officer thought it was a very good idea stating that it was an ideal site to have industry that you would not want alongside residential accommodation and consequently over the years several plots have been sold. He felt that there should be a decent pre-planting scheme to screen the site and he employed a firm of landscape architects to design it, with quite a lot of trees being planted and the ones adjacent to the site are a wide mixture of native trees.

Mr Aveling expressed the view that the footpath is the other side of the trees and was surprised by the comments of officers regarding the footpath as you cannot see anything through these trees. He expressed the opinion that on the refusal reasons for planning permission at an earlier date he did know a little bit about it as Mr Lefevre of Data Shredders came to him and said he had been refused could he help or give advice and he asked three councillors to speak with him and when they heard what Mr Lefevre actually wanted to do they thought it was a good idea and they said the reason for refusal was the application was for lorry parking and the site would contain 200 lorries and this was not wanted, which seemed logical as no one wants 200 lorries parked there, and the Council at that meeting said if another application was submitted it would be looked at probably very differently to the first one but Mr Lefevre decided he had enough of planning and would leave things as they were.

Mr Aveling stated that he cannot see that this is an open agricultural site, it is just to the north of the industrial area, it is surrounded by trees on two sides and the industrial estate on the other side so, in his view, it cannot be called open countryside. He feels it is a logical extension of the existing industrial area and stated that he has got no personal financial interest at the present time except that he owns the access road which is more of a liability than an asset.

Members asked questions of Mr Aveling as follows:

·       Councillor Marks asked if that the road that Mr Aveling owns is a private and concrete road. Mr Aveling confirmed this was correct and that he has done everything the Planners have asked him to do.

·       Councillor Meekins referred to the location map and expressed the view that it looks pretty open on three sides and then the industrial units to the south. Mr Aveling responded that there is a thick belt of trees to the north and west. Mr Meekins questioned that trees are part of the countryside. Mr Aveling responded that they were planted as a screen to the industrial area. Councillor Meekins stated that looking at the map he can see the trees by the industrial area and the site where this application appears to be it is just trees shielding a field in his view. Mr Aveling reiterated that the trees were originally planted here to shield the whole of the industrial area, the basis being that you do not put trees just at the edge of one plot you put them further away and provide a decent screen and now they are mature. Councillor Meekins reiterated that it still looks like they are trees surrounding a field and he has always thought trees surrounding a field are in the countryside.

·       Councillor Cornwell agreed that from the plan is does appear that they are trees surrounding open land but it is known that there is no open land there where the trees surround. Mr Aveling responded that he does not own it and has not done so for many years but he understands that the applicant has undertaken some work on the land without planning permission and he is applying retrospectively but whether the land had no development or not it was surrounded by the trees that shade the industrial development.

·       Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that a retrospective planning application has to be given the same weight as any other.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Aveling if he could remember what year these trees were planted? Mr Aveling responded about 1990.

·       Councillor Skoulding expressed the opinion that the trees have been put in a straight line which indicates screening, if the trees had been dotted about you could understand saying that is a field or whatever but these have been deliberately put in a straight line.

·       Councillor Marks asked that when the trees were put in in 1990 was it future proofing for the industrial area? Mr Aveling responded that there was industrial development that has expanded slowly.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that the applicant has been self-employed in business in Fenland for over 20 years, all of this in construction and the applicant presently employs 12 people in the business which is both on-site construction, deliveries and yard work, with the activities generally being 6 days a week. He made the point that the applicant has a number of plant including JCBs, mini-diggers, lorry grabbers, trailers, front loaders, company vans, dumpers and teleporters.

Mr Hall advised that a previous application at this site was refused in 2018 for storage and distribution, however, this was for a greater number of vehicle movements from the site including the weighbridge and was not this applicant. He expressed the view that this proposal is for a builder’s yard which is considerably less vehicle movements and at present the applicant has advised him that he has got three lorries that run from this site and there would be storage of various aggregates, ballast and topsoil, with the material’s used on the applicant’s own construction sites with the remainder being delivered locally to other sites.

Mr Hall stated that a full drainage design has been provided and the LLFA has been consulted and raised no objection. He referred to the officer’s report which advises the nearest Listed Building is approximately 450 metres away from this site and the proposal would be neutral.

Mr Hall made the point that an ecology survey has been provided and accepted and the applicant is happy to carry out any landscaping required through any planning conditions. He referred to Mr Aveling mentioning that there are a number of trees that surround this site, some of which are subject to Tree Preservation Orders and all of the trees and hedges around this site are to be maintained and the officer’s report even confirms these would not be affected by the proposal.

Mr Hall expressed the view that members will be aware that between this site and the main A141 bypass between March and Chatteris there is a substantial tree line, all of which is to be maintained and some of it is even outside of this application site when travelling along the A141 in either direction you are unable to see this site. He displayed a photo taken on Saturday showing the applicant’s existing yard at Whittlesey Road in March West, that site is in Flood Zone 3 and the site in Eastwood End is in Flood Zone 1, with the site at Whittlesey Road being full with sheds, various vehicles and aggregates, and all the land around this site is not owned by the applicant or any of his family members so it could be said why does he not look at expanding this yard and purchasing the land, however, it is in Flood Zone 3, the south side of this site there is a board main drain and then Whittlesey Road so it cannot be expanded that way, to the east again there is Whittlesey Road and if they were to expand in the other direction to the north approximately 90 metres away there is a line of residential properties and on the other side of Whittlesey Road there are other residential properties, with this proposal being not the sort of thing you would want near residential properties.

Mr Hall expressed the view that the site at Eastwood End abuts the existing industrial estate which is referred to in the planning officer’s report, it is in Flood Zone 1, the applicant has provided full drainage design scheme with no objection from the LLFA, the site has an existing access used by the existing industrial estate that has been in existence 35-40 years and this is an ideal location for this type of business away from residential properties. He feels the applicant has been proactive in searching for a piece of land in Flood Zone 1 abutting existing industrial development.

Mr Hall stated the applicant lives approximately 2½ miles away from this site and the existing industrial estate has been in existence since the late 1980s to his knowledge prior to this the area was agricultural land, just like this site, and over a number of years the estate has expanded onto this agricultural land which is what is proposed here. He made the point that at previous meetings members have said Fenland is open for business, this site and application is a business application adjacent to an existing industrial development.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she knows the site in Whittlesey Road well and asked if this application is approved is this site going to be moved to Eastwood End or is it going to continue to be there? Mr Hall responded that vehicles, plant and storage would be moved away, the sheds would remain as before the applicant took on the site it was a lorry yard and it would be utilised for this again.

·       Councillor Meekins asked what a swale was? Mr Hall responded that on the application site to the north east corner a swale is similar to a large pond where all the rainwater from this development would go into and attenuate, there would be a hydro break before it discharges into the ditch slowly.

·       Councillor Cornwell asked that before the unauthorised work started on the land was it agricultural land? Mr Hall responded in the affirmative. Councillor Cornwell asked then at what stage did the applicant realise he needed planning permission? Mr Hall responded that when he visited the site in March/April 2022 it was an agricultural field, the application was submitted April/May 2022 and the application has been submitted for more or less a year and the applicant has moved onto the site and that it is why it is termed part retrospective, which was not submitted as this he believes because nothing had taken place at the submission stage.

·       Councillor Benney asked if there was a need to start using the yard because this is a business and businesses need to thrive. Mr Hall responded that he also lives in March and the applicant’s existing yard is in Whittlesey Road which he frequently passes, with the photo that he displayed if members had gone there last year or even the start of this year there was stuff piled up everywhere and the applicant could not carry on like this. He made the point the applicant found another site and whilst it is acknowledged that he should not have moved on there without planning, he has employed additional people, there is an obvious need for what he does both in his own work and through selling to others and has had to for natural expansion.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Murphy stated that on the site visits at the end of the roadway there is a stop line and then all of a sudden there is a substantial steel fencing, earth removal, etc and has anything on this site had planning permission at all or is it illegal and if so is this application now illegal? David Rowen responded that nothing on this site has obtained planning permission so everything that is on site at the moment is unlawful from a planning point of view. He stated that the planning application before members is a lawful application, there is nothing in planning legislation that says that a planning authority cannot deal with a retrospective application and the retrospective application must be considered on its own merits in relation to material considerations and planning policy.

·       Nick Harding stated that as members would have seen from the reports there was the earlier planning application relating to Data Shredders, which was mentioned by the supporter of the application and whilst the exact boundary of that application to this is slightly different broadly speaking it is the same parcel of land. He advised that the Data Shredders application was not refused on highway impact grounds, it was refused consent in terms of its impact and intrusion on the open countryside and in terms of committee’s deliberation it is what has changed in circumstances since the refusal of that application in 2017 on that site. Nick Harding made the point that part of the consideration on Data Shredders was does the economic benefits of allowing the expansion of the business outweigh the impact on the open countryside in terms of the damage that is going to be caused and the answer was no.

·       Councillor Cornwell referred to the report and that the archaeology team were trying to ask for conditions and as he understands it at the site at the moment it would be impossible to operate those conditions because the site has surely been excavated and damaged so any archaeological findings that were there would be gone. Nick Harding responded that it all depends on how deep the archaeology is below the surface and this is not known until such time as the evaluation has been undertaken so having the archaeology condition if this application was approved would not be a waste of time.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he went and looked at the site and there is a lot of earth on top so what is stopping that being removed to carry out the archaeological dig as it is not as though there is tons of concrete poured on the land or buildings as at the moment what is there could be moved and the likelihood is the spoil will move anyway as that is part of the business.

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

·       Councillor Skoulding stated that he was on the site inspections but had to go back and visit the site and walked the whole length of the road and, in his view, it is full of industrial factories and this proposal fits in here perfectly and also the road leads to this site so it was put in here for a purpose. He feels it is nice to see businesses succeeding and the committee should not want to stop this.

·       Councillor Purser stated that open for business is correct, his family come from a building background so he knows how these businesses operate and he feels it is superb to see that someone starts up on their own and expands employing more and more people and getting a larger yard might mean even more people are employed. He expressed the view that businesses such as these just need to dump their materials to be used the next day and it does not want to be an eyesore in everyone else’s way and being at the bottom of a yard like this is an ideal place to put it. Councillor Purser expressed the view that it has outgrown the original site at Whittlesey Road and he feels this is an ideal place for it to go and he cannot see how this encroaches on the countryside, it is out of the way, secure, an ideal place, hurting nobody and he welcomes the application.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she does not support the application, it is very easy to say it is at the end but for 20 years it has been just a bit more and it has grown and over doubled in size over 20 years. She feels the problem is that the Council has allowed private residences to be built in that area alongside the industrial estate and, in her view, you can only have one or the other and that has not happened and now the residents are suffering as the industrial area is now too big. Councillor Mrs Davis stated that there are lots of problems with lorries turning off the A141 into Eastwood End and there have been two accidents and there are lorries parking up just on the inside of Eastwood End and when another lorry tries to come off he is unable to as there is one in front of him and he cannot get round it, which makes it very dangerous for other traffic. She feels it is also OK to say that a retrospective application should be treated as normal but questioned what message does this send out that someone can come along and put a load of fencing and earth and do what they want with a piece of land. Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the view that it is going out into the open countryside, it is agricultural land and if it is allowed here the rest of that field going the other way will go the same way becoming bigger and bigger.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he respects everything that Councillor Mrs Davis has said but feels there is another side to this as well. He expressed the view that as he knows the area having dealt with a number of businesses in this location, there was a fire there approximately 17 months ago which had an effect with pollution and there is also Law’s Fertiliser here, which has an impact with smell and the earth that stands in this yard is going to have minimal environmental impact compared to other businesses that are already there succeeding in Fenland. Councillor Marks advised that there is a business on the corner, CDT, that are pulling out so that will probably become another business and he feels this is the right place to put this proposal, there is shielding, you cannot see it from the bypass, you can take lorries down there as he has done it and it is out of the way. He knows that Data Shredders due to the lack of electric on its site have had generators going from 6am until 10pm, which cannot be heard so nobody there is going to have any sound problems, no dust pollution and businesses like this need to be supported, a business that is growing in Fenland and members keep giving permission for housing applications the spoils have got to go somewhere and those spoils get reused and a lot of it is going to be recycled referring to the railway, which is exactly the same as this it is a big open yard where they bring back items for recycling and you cannot see this either.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she understands what Councillor Marks is saying but it is to the detriment of local people, who have paid a lot of money for their properties and there is the Woodman’s Way that runs to the side and Fenland sells as a tourist attraction and the two just do not go together in her view. She feels the time has come when this industrial site has met its maximum.

·       Councillor Marks stated that if you drive along as you get past Pavemac there is a big field here for development, a bit further along where the gates are. He expressed the view that he could be nimby and say he did not want a car park in the back of his garden but he did not he supported what he thought was right and this is the same here, yes there are residents but a lot of these residents houses have come in after the industrial estate so those people have to realise what is on their doorstep.

·       Councillor Purser made the point that, whilst he understands and respects what Councillor Mrs Davis has said, in his father’s day planning permission was not needed for uses such as this and they could do what they like and at least now permission has to be given to do this.

·       Councillor Benney referred to the discussions on whether this is retrospective or not and stated that on his first planning training with Nick he was told that you do not need planning permission to build anything but if the Council do not like it they will make you take it down.  He expressed the opinion that looking at this application nothing has been done wrong and the applicant has been pushed into a position where the business has expanded faster than the Council can react and, therefore, he has had to what he has had to do to look after his business and if the application is rejected the applicant will have to look at other options. Councillor Benney made the point that this is a business that is growing and when he visited the site he could see it is a major business, which is in the middle of an industrial site and questioned where else would this yard be located as it could not be placed in a housing estate and this is, in his view, far enough away from residents and if people have brought houses next to an industrial estate then this is buyer beware. He feels the site is a natural extension and there is a need for this, making the point that the Council is supposed to be open for business but yet when an application is submitted such as this, which has taken a long time to get to this position, members are dithering over whether they support this or not and to him this is the right place for it as it is far enough away from where residents are and in the middle of an industrial area.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that her only concern is this proposal rounds this piece off and what is going to happen with the next piece and the next piece. She made the point that this is supposed to be a small industrial area and, in her view, this finishes the area off.

·       Councillor Marks questioned what a small industrial area is, what is a small industrial area compared to an industrial area or a large industrial area, how many companies is needed, what size of units as it is known that Fenland is short of units especially in March and going down to Chatteris so what is the definition of a small industrial area is there anything in Planning that defines it. Nick Harding responded that there is not a planning definition of small, medium or large industrial estates. Councillor Marks asked for clarification that there is no set remit of the size so members have heard it is a small industrial estate but there is not acreage or similar that defines an industrial estate up to that size. Nick Harding responded that no because there is not an outline planning consent that covers the whole of that industrial area as one. Councillor Marks made the point then in theory units could keep being placed in this area until the land runs out. Nick Harding responded that it does not matter whether or not planning permission is granted in outline for example 10 hectares that does not stop anybody from applying to make it even bigger so if there is an industrial estate that has simply grown purely by a series of small planning applications and there is a situation that exists in Fenland where there are not any settlement boundaries each application has to be judged on its submission.

·       Nick Harding reminded members that there has been a previous refusal for the same piece of land, it was a Data Shredders proposal so it was for business and looking to become more efficient and effective but notwithstanding that the decision was to refuse on the grounds of the impact it would have on the countryside so it has to be considered in what way is this application any different to that previously refused.

·       Councillor Marks asked for clarification on the Data Shredders application, was that for open storage of paper and their product or was that for the holding of vehicles before it went up to their main sites. Nick Harding responded that it was to create a lorry trailer and mobile shredding machine storage and siting of a weighbridge so it was moving certain aspect of its business from where they were to a different site to free up land within its existing site. Councillor Marks expressed the view that it was actually a holding area for lorries coming into their business so there was going to be a lot more vehicle movements hence why they wanted it in this area with a weighbridge. Nick Harding stated that he does not disagree but the issue is it was still a business proposal on the site and it was felt that this did not outweigh the impact it would have on the loss of the countryside.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Davis, seconded by Councillor Meekins to refuse the application as per officer’s recommendation, which was not supported by a majority on a vote.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be APPROVED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to formulate conditions to include an archaeological condition in association with the Chairman and Councillor Benney.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel the benefit of this business being in this location and expanding by far outweighs the loss of open countryside and that this application is different to the previous one as that was for lorry use and this is for running a building business so it is felt to be a different type of business.

(Councillor Sutton declared following Mr Aveling’s presentation that as Mr Aveling owns the access road and he has attended a social event at which Mr Aveling was present he would leave the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Mrs Davis registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is Chairman of Wimblington Parish Council, but takes no part in planning)

(Councillor Connor registered, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a District Councillor for Doddington and Wimblington and does attend Wimblington Parish Council meetings but takes no part in planning)

(Councillors Benney, Connor, Mrs French and Purser registered, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on this application)