Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Tim Taylor, a District Councillor. Councillor Taylor stated that this proposal is a 2-bed annexe for the retired age of the farming family and farmers live in a rural location all their lives and have got farming running through their veins. He expressed the view that there are no drainage issues because the site is on its own sewage treatment plant.

Councillor Taylor asked members to imagine retiring and having this little annexe built to open your curtains in the morning to look out onto your open fields that you have built, designed and created, looking out over the cows feeding or calving or the sheep grazing and lambing. He expressed the view that what better way to retire than to the life you have become accustomed to and used to all your life.

Councillor Taylor stated that he visited a friend in Peterborough and he could not stand being in his house any more than 20 minutes as he could not cope with the noise and he said that when he visits him he is exactly the same as his home’s location is too quiet. He made the point that it is what people have been used to and feels there are two choices, it is a farm in the middle of nowhere, it has no public view and it is not going to be seen unless people are walking down a bridleway so the application can either be refused and the people have to live elsewhere or is it a case of saying they have lived all their life on the farm, employed local people, supported local communities, fed the nation so have a happy long retirement looking out of this little annexe onto the land, farm and industries that they have created and still feel part of the countryside and part of that farm.

Councillor Taylor stated that the family is still going to live in the main house, with the annexe being 10-15 yards away but if you are in the annexe that is not connected to the main house the person has the feeling of independence and is not tied to the main house but close enough to shout for help if required. He expressed the view that this type of project is something the Farming Committee and Planning Committee should be working together on across the District.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall expressed the view that the principle is acceptable but it appears that the position and the scale are of concern and he has submitted some private medical evidence to show that this is for a family member and for future generations. He stated that the proposal is for a 2-bedroom annexe, with the second bedroom being, as and when required, for a live in carer and it has also been designed at one level, with the design, in his view, being quite reasonable.

Mr Hall referred to the plan on the presentation screen and stated that one key point with this application is it is about 450 metres from the A141 March Bypass, it cannot be seen from the highway. He expressed the view that the annexe has been positioned at the side of the existing property, it has been looked at being positioned in other places, such as the north-east within the curtilage of the property but it would have been further away from the main residence and it could block their view, with that residence having been there about 30 years, if it had been positioned to the south-west it would block the houses view of their own farmland and it would also have been further away from the main residence and it cannot be positioned to the north-west as there are major farm buildings and a business in this location so there is no room.

Mr Hall stated that the applicants own approximately 800 acres of land split between this site, which is about 270 acres, and the rest at Doddington, with the proposal site being around quarter of an acre of land. He made the point that the annexe will use the same parking and the same access as the main residence, with the site being ideally located within Flood Zone 1.

Mr Hall advised that the applicants at this site have invested in solar panels that produce approximately 330 KW and this proposed annexe would be powered by these as there is no gas at the location. He added that they have also recently installed a 50,000 litre rainwater recycling tanks and these are the same applicants who between March and Chatteris have just planted 10,000 trees, therefore, in his opinion, the site will be well screened even more than it is now with hedging and that can be agreed with officers if this application is approved.

Mr Hall stated that the applicants are fully aware that there will be, if approved, a planning occupancy condition to ensure that this is an annexe subservient to the existing property. He made the point that there are no technical objections, there are no objections from anybody in the community, medical evidence has been submitted to state its need and the application has the support from March Town Council and Councillor Taylor.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·         Councillor Connor confirmed that members of the Planning Committee have seen no medical details of the applicant or their relations who may or may not live on site if the application gets approved. Mr Hall responded that he did submit 3 pages of medical evidence and he just assumed that members had seen it.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that there have been similar circumstances before but it has been included in the written report, with some of the information being confidential, and she feels something should have been included in this report and feels that the application should be deferred.

·         Councillor Hicks referred to Councillor Taylor saying that the residents of this annexe would be looking over open fields but he feels that this is not his recollection and believes the property is surrounded by trees, asking who is correct? Mr Hall responded that the existing property, which has been there 30 years, is surrounded by trees and the proposed annexe on the right-hand side juts out and he has said that hedging and trees could be planted but it is all open field going back towards Wimblington. He clarified that the existing property is screened and he would want to put some planting around the annexe, but, in his view, it would have some field views.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to distances, if it was in the garden of the property at the top right on the plan closer to the road it would be too far from the main residence and if this is a concern why does it have to be a separate annexe and not an annexe that is joined onto the property as there does appear to be room for that with no other buildings directly around the main house. Mr Hall responded that looking at the map to the top right-hand corner that is all part of the curtilage to this property and if it was positioned there it would be further away from the existing property and they do not really want to place it in the south facing garden of the existing property as it would block the view. He stated that the proposal is about 13-14 metres away from the existing property, it is not joined and, in his view, it is ideal where it is positioned rather than joining it to the existing property which would then look overly large, with the existing dwelling being 2-storey and this proposal needs to be at one level for possible future use. Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she is trying to ascertain if distance is an issue and the annexe could be joined onto the house then either distance is an issue or it is not. Mr Hall expressed the opinion that they do not want to disrupt the existing curtilage to the existing property, which is why is located just to the side. Councillor Sennitt Clough questioned that can she conclude that distance is not the top priority. Mr Hall confirmed it was not.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he assumes seeing as the application is for an annexe it is for relatives. Mr Hall confirmed that was correct, it is for one of the applicant’s father and evidence has been submitted to show his condition is deteriorating. Councillor Benney stated that he does not know the applicants but he knows of them and referred to his father’s property in York Road that had an annexe for which planning permission was granted for his grandmother to live in and that was a separate annexe, which worked very well until his Nan deteriorated and went into a home so the fact that it is not connected, in his view, is not necessary to provide a continuity of care and asked if this is the kind of similar use that this annexe would be used for? Mr Hall confirmed it would be and the reason for two bedrooms is for a live in carer, both bedrooms have en-suites or wet rooms. He added that it is separate, it is single storey and, in his opinion, if it was joined onto the existing property that would make this property 25 metres wide and far too big.

·         Councillor Hicks asked what is going to happen in the long-term for this annexe? Mr Hall responded that the proposal is for an 85 year old at the moment and the applicants he believes are mid-50s who live in the main residence, they have children, one who is undertaking a university degree in agriculture, they are a long established farming family and, in his view, in future family members would move into the annexe out of the main residence and the younger generation who will slowly be taking on the farm will be in the main residence.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that having listened to Mr Hall saying that he had submitted medical evidence normally this information is within the report and asked why it has not been included? David Rowen responded that personal circumstances are addressed at 10.17 of the officer’s report where it indicates that it is required to meet care needs of a family member and whilst it is acknowledged it is considered the annexe is excessive in size and scale outside the established curtilage and does not overcome the harm that is identified. He stated that officers have acknowledged the personal circumstances and given weight to it and if members wish to give different weight and wish to see the evidence as confidential papers members could request a deferral for it to be brought back to the next meeting. Councillor Mrs French stated that if this is possible and the committee agrees she would like this.

·         Councillor Hicks sated that he is happy with report as it is and think there is enough information to make a decision.

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

·         Councillor Marks stated that 3-4 years ago the then Planning Committee considered an application for an annexe which was delayed and unfortunately the person passed away during the delay so he is mindful of waiting for reports to come through. He feels it is for a farming community and family and there will be generations going through so it will be a hand-me-down property and whilst it sits out into a field, it is an annexe and does not need to be against the property and there is no set distance away from a property. Councillor Marks stated that having had an elderly relative live in his garden in a bungalow they had the security of knowing they were up and about as their curtains were open so he fully supports the justification for this annexe and feels it should be supported now. He made the point that it is also keeping somebody in their own home, which is a saving to the community whilst the family are prepared to look after an elderly relative and the Council should support it.

·         Councillor Benney agreed with the comments of Councillor Marks, he looked after his parents for many years and he knows the strain it puts on a family when you have to go and visit them every day and he would have loved for his parents to have brought the bungalow next to him, which would not be joined to the house but a hole could be put in the fence, which is the situation with this application, and this would have saved him hours driving backwards and forwards to their house. He feels that anybody that is prepared to look after their parents and family, their family will live longer because they will receive better care and a better quality of care than in a home and it is highly commendable, being the best outcome for any older person to be looked after by family. Councillor Benney referred to the site being in the open countryside and made the point that all of Chatteris is the open countryside, the district is surrounded by countryside and as much as he understands the elements of the policy this is the purpose of this committee to look at an application and ask if it brings benefit in some way, is this a case of where you the policy is not one size fits all, this is a case where the policy fails the very people who are helping themselves and circumstances should be given more weight to other areas where the policies do not. He expressed the opinion that this annexe needs to be built, the applicants own 800 acres of land which is a big farm and only a tiny piece of this is being taken to build a home for somebody who has been part of this community for years and it would be a travesty if this was not approved.

·         Councillor Connor reminded the committee that 18 months ago there was a similar application at Wisbech St Mary which was supported by the committee so members need to be consistent.

·         Councillor Hicks expressed the view that there is a bigger picture to consider, with the fact that this is going to help protect for years to come that farm and there will be a lot of benefit for a lot of years. He made the point that the site is surrounding by trees so nobody is going to see it or know that it is there.

·         David Rowen expressed caution regarding how the application is being considered as it has been applied for as an annexe and he is concerned that members are giving certain weight to the need for this as a dwelling in connection with the farm, which is not what the application is for.

·         Councillor Benney asked that if due to these concerns would it be possible to put a condition that it could only be used in conjunction with the owners of the farm as if what committee is being told it would have no bearing or effect on what they are doing and could alleviate the concern of it being used for farm workers? David Rowen responded that if the committee’s decision is to grant the application that sort of condition could be imposed but how realistic this would be or how effective that would be into the future is questionable. Councillor Benney stated that if that helps alleviate the officer’s concerns and would assist with making a happier situation adding a condition such as this, but it is the same with any condition that is put on that do not always get implemented and no one can predict the future.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the comment that members have to be mindful that it is a farm, if this was annexe in the middle of Chatteris for example would committee still be sitting here debating it and is it just purely as it is in a rural location. David Rowen responded that a different annexe in a different location with a different set of circumstances may get a different recommendation.

·         Councillor Connor stated that this proposal is for an older person living close by their relations so they can keep an eye on them and as Councillor Benney says if members feel to go forward with the application that a condition needs adding for it to be used by family members only.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the reasons for refusal, it is in the open countryside but it is surrounded by trees and due to special circumstances she thinks these reasons for refusal can be overturned.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED, against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply relevant conditions including that occupancy be tied to the main residence.

Members did not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the benefits to the farm and the family outweigh Policy LP3 in term of harm of building in the open countryside and there is a need for this proposal within the family.

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind).

(Councillor Marks declared that he believes the applicant is a member of a Drainage Board that he is a member of, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Mrs French declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a member of March Town Council, but takes not part in planning)