Agenda item

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.

 

David Rowen presented the report to Members.

 

Members received a presentation from Parish Councillor Ruth Hufton from Doddington Parish Council in objection to the application.

 

Councillor Hufton explained that Doddington Parish Council object to this application for a number of reasons; the applicant has already completed the building associated with the application and are already conducting a business from the premises; the area is a residential area close to the church and is a quiet lane where many people walk; the premises are very close to the conservation area and the business will have a detrimental impact on the feel of that particular part of the village, and the premises are situated on a sharp corner where Church Lane becomes Eastmoor Lane and any cars parked in the area could constitute a hazard.

 

Councillor Hufton stated that the application applies for a change of use from residential to residential and importation, breeding and selling of tropical fish, which is called a hobby business, but, in the view, of the Parish Council it should be classed as a business. She made the point that the applicants supporting statement, which is on the Fenland District Council website, declares that the business started as a hobby, which, in the Parish Council’s view, confirms that it is no longer a hobby but is actually a business.

 

Councillor Hufton added that the Parish Council have no wish to stop new businesses opening in the village, however, the area which is being used is unsuitable for any business as it will disturb the peace and quiet, with there being more suitable locations within Doddington and Manea which have small business units already built.  She commented that the Parish Council also have concerns over the flushing of the fish tanks on a regular basis, whilst they are aware that the application states that soakaways will be used, the area on the corner of Church Lane and Eastmoor Lane adjacent to the property is already known to flood when there is heavy rainfall and properties on Eastmoor Lane have already been known to have suffered water damage in the past, and should the application be granted the Parish Council would ask that adequate drainage be installed to alleviate this problem.

 

Members asked Councillor Hufton the following questions;

 

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked, with regard to the flooding of Eastmoor Lane, whether the flooding incidents have been reported or recorded with Anglian Water or the Environment Agency?  Councillor Hufton stated that they have been reported and a certain amount of works have been carried out, however, in times of heavy rainfall the road slopes towards 2 properties who have suffered flooding.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Snowdon in objection to the application.

 

Mr Snowdon explained that since January a property has been transformed into an operational fish farm without planning permission and without checks with regard to drainage and water egress.  In his view, the application and officer’s report contain errors and the application title for a change of use states to include the breeding of tropical fish, however, in the supporting statement of 28 August the applicant has stated he does not breed fish.

 

Mr Snowdon stated that the officer’s report refers to the vicinity being commercial/residential and this statement is wrong as it is a residential area. He further referred to the report stating that the fish farm will create minimal economic benefit and, in his opinion, this is incorrect as there is no economic benefit or employment created, but inconvenience caused due to the increase in the amount of traffic and the issues surrounding the water, drainage and sewerage problems, which all actually pose an economic, social and environmental cost to the village.

 

Mr Snowdon expressed the view there is no demand for a fish farm locally and it is only beneficial to the applicant and a market external to the village, with the applicant mis-understanding the requirement for the permissions needed to operate a business.  He highlighted that the officer’s report states that the parking area will be used by both visitors and the courier van, however, he has submitted photographs to the Planning Department showing parking not on the hard standing.

 

Mr Snowdon expressed the view that the fish farm also brings with it associated issues, such as smell, cleanliness, drainage and environmental impact and whilst the applicant has stated that he has not seen any indication of flooding, properties suffered from flooding in 2014. He advised that the Highway Authority have expressed their concerns over the boundary wall which encroaches on the highway and this still needs to be resolved.

 

Mr Snowdon asked that if the committee are minded to approve the application then the height of the boundary wall must be added as a condition for it to be lowered making the point that when works commenced on the building in January, local residents contacted the District Council to raise their concerns, but no enforcement action took place. He expressed the opinion that the applicant has made no attempt to comply with the law and the application offers nothing positive to the community, it is highly unlikely that the applicant will comply with the requirements within the impact assessment and would not monitor accurately the number of visitors.

 

Mr Snowdon expressed the view that even to grant the application on a temporary basis would not be agreeable as by default it would become permanent and he would ask that the Committee refuse the application, requiring it to be returned to its original state as a residential property.

 

Members asked Mr Snowdon the following questions:

 

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked if he could elaborate on the photos he has? Mr Snowdon stated that he had submitted photographs of the courier van. David Rowen stated that the issue that had been raised in his presentation of the report was that no evidence had been provided to demonstrate a substantive harm on amenities and not that there had been no photographic evidence submitted.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, by Mr Hu, the Applicant.

 

Mr Hu explained that it is a hobby business, he has kept tropical fish over many years and due to the expertise in the subject he started a business operating from home.  He stated that when he moved to Doddington he was unaware it was a Conservation Area and when he was made aware that there was an issue and that there was a need to apply for planning permission, all building works stopped.

 

Mr Hu referred to a number of complaints concerning the hard standing area regarding couriers attending the property and parking on the main road, making the point that the driveway is only half completed because an objection has been raised, but the driveway will have enough space to park 8 or 10 cars.  He stated that he is specialist tropical fish importer, he is not a breeder, but sometimes there are personal callers to the house in connection with fish, however, most of the business is carried out on line via Facebook and the website.

 

Mr Hu stated that a courier visits the property 2 or 3 times a week and once the driveway is competed there will be no parking issues. He added that the Local Authority have already approved the premises for a pet licence and the property is connected to the main drainage system.

 

Members asked Mr Hu the following questions:

 

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked for clarification on whether he is a breeder?  Mr Hu stated that he is a discus fish keeper and not a breeder.

·         Councillor Connor asked for confirmation on whether he has planning permission?  Mr Hu confirmed he has not. Councillor Connor asked whether he did not realise that he would need planning permission from the Local Authority?  Mr Hu stated that where he resided before in London he did not require it and when he contacted Fenland District Council, he was advised for a small extension it would not be required.  Councillor Connor stated that, in his opinion, wherever you reside you would need planning permission. Mr Harding clarified that if somebody contacts the local authority with regard to whether planning permission is required the authority would not respond to a verbal enquiry and would request it in writing, which also includes an associated fee. Upon receipt of this, a formal reply is given. Certain developments can be undertaken without planning permission, but the authority would also give the advice to a customer to put their enquiry in writing, providing the address and exact nature of the proposal.

·         Councillor Mrs Hay asked if when Mr Hu initially contacted the authority to question whether planning permission was required did he detail what the extension was for?  Mr Hu stated that he did explain.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked for confirmation on whether he is a breeder and it is a business? Mr Hu confirmed it is a business and he is not a breeder.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked whether he works full time?  Mr Hu confirmed that he works from home and Councillor Mrs Laws continued by saying that he operates a business that is really a hobby.  Mr Hu stated that most of the business is carried out on line. Councillor Mrs Laws stated that she is trying to understand the proposal as it is a residential area where a business is being operated from a home address which is perceived to be a hobby, which has couriers and visitors at all hours. Mr Hu stated that 95% of the business is carried out on line and couriers attend the property between 14.30pm and 16.00pm, three times a week at the most.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she is confused as Mr Hu is saying that it is his hobby not his business.

·         Councillor Mrs Hay asked whether he carries out any other form of work from his home address and where his main income comes from?  Mr Hu confirmed that it is from the fish business.

·         Councillor Connor asked how the contaminated water is disposed of?   Mr Hu confirmed that it goes down the drain adding that the water is also recycled as part of a filtration system.

·         Councillor Connor referred to an Anglian Water email from November 2016 which stated that Doddington and Wimblington do not have the capacity for any more water effluent as it is backing up and currently tankers are taking effluent and waste from Eastmoor Lane and Cooks Green to March as the local treatment plant cannot cope.

·         Councillor Benney stated that it has been established that Mr Hu is running a business in a residential area and asked whether he has considered moving to a business area? Mr Hu stated that he is a small business operating on line.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Gittoes in support of the application.

 

Mr Gittoes explained that he is a friend of Mr Hu and knew him when he resided in London. He added that Mr Hu had no issues with regard to running a business in a residential street in the middle of London, he is very well respected in the Discus Fish business and you cannot stop fish from breeding.

 

Mr Gittoes expressed the opinion that there is no noise from running a tropical fish business and once the driveway is completed there will be no issue with regard to parking on the highway.

 

Members asked Mr Gittoes the following questions:

 

·         Councillor Connor thanked Mr Gittoes for his honesty and for clarifying that Mr Hu is running a business.

 

Mr Harding highlighted to members that there has been confusion over the nature of the proposal, but the application form makes it quite clear that it is for a change of use from a residential property to a mixed use of residential and business, and part of that business use is for the breeding of fish, so if the applicant chooses not breed the fish, but is granted the planning permission that is what he can do subsequently.

 

Mr Turnbull, the legal representative, highlighted to members that it has been raised that Mr Hu did not, but should have, applied for planning permission in advance and his failure to do so is not material in the decision by the committee on the planning merits of the application.

 

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

 

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that she is concerned with regard to the drainage issues and the fact that properties have already been flooded acknowledging the impact this can have on the residents. She added that although highways do not consider the off road parking area to provide suitable parking to cater for the business element, they state that there is unrestricted kerbside parking available within the vicinity.  On the site visit, the turning does not have good visibility which is also a concern. Councillor Mrs Laws added that she is mindful that this is retrospective planning permission; however, she is concerned where this could lead, being in a residential area and the business could expand going forward.

·         Councillor Mrs Newell stated that in the officer’s report it states that the Environmental Health officers have great concerns and it mentions a pumping machine which will be used to run the facility.  David Rowen clarified that within section 5.3 of the report it states that environmental health have made further comments on 2/11/18 stating that they have no further comments to make, are now satisfied and are not raising any objection to the proposal.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis referred to planning officers sending an email on 22/6/18 to Mrs Russet which states that, following a site visit with Environmental Health, it considered that the business being run from the property constituted a material change of use and would require planning permission and, therefore, she would like to know what had changed since that time.  David Rowen stated that it related to an application which was submitted earlier on in the year which has been withdrawn and officers now feel that the screening that is around the building and the potential to get the building painted in a more sympathetic colour now addresses the issue.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he read through the withdrawn application, the officer’s report and also visited the site again reviewing both National and local policies quoting from point 127 and 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  He expressed the view that historically the triangle area in Doddington never suffered from any flooding.

·         Councillor Sutton added that he has met many businesses over the years, with a view to attracting them to the area, and ,therefore, he questions whether the business aspect of the application outweighs his concerns of the visual aspect feeling on this occasion it does not. He highlighted that within Manea and Chatteris there are workplace homes and there is no shortage in Fenland of places where this business could and should operate.  He expressed the view that the proposal detracts from the character of the area and the applicant and Mr Gittoes have said that the car parking hard standing area will be completed soon; however, the parking area is not fit for purpose.  He feels the application does not fit with the policy on visual impact and character of the area and he cannot support it.

 

Proposed by Councillor Sutton and seconded by Councillor Clark and decided that the application be REFUSED against the officer’s recommendation.

 

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of grant of planning permission as they felt that the proposed extension does comply with the Local Plan Policy LP16, does not make a positive contribution to the appearance and character of the area, the proposed extension is detrimental to the area and the size and scale of the building is also considered harmful to the character of the host dwelling.

 

(Councillors Connor and Councillor Mrs Davis, registered in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they were members of both Doddington and Wimblington Parish Council but take no part in planning matters)

 

(The Chairman registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning matters, that he had been lobbied on this application)