Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall explained that the Gladwin family purchased the farm in 1993 together with the cottages all as one and at that time there were 420 acres now there are 1,364 acres some of which is contract farming, and it is a mixed arable and livestock farm. He made reference to the officer’s report and stated that under section 4.0 it makes reference to the planning history, and it gives a good overview of the farm, pointing out that in 1996 there was an application for the erection of an agricultural building, in 2011 the erection of a pig fattening unit and in 2019 the erection of an agricultural store which demonstrates that over this period of time there has been expansion at this farm and the applicant wants to expand further.

Mr Hall explained that the applicant has invested in a pig fattening unit which holds 1,050 pigs and to his knowledge this is only one of two operating in Fenland, with the other one being at Wood Street in Doddington, and the farm also has a contract with Warburtons, the bread company, for some of their grain as well. He stated when the application was submitted, an independent agricultural appraisal was enclosed which was carried out by Cheffins and within the Council's consultant’s comments under 9.14 it states that the need for an additional worker is marginal which, in his opinion, states that there is a need but he does not believe that the Council's agricultural consultant has visited the site.

Mr Hall added that the shed and infrastructure are already in place and are being used and this is not a new enterprise as it is an expanding long-established farm, with their appearing to be a great deal of support for the application and the Ward Councillor for the area, Councillor Dal Roy, supports the application along former member, Will Sutton, who has written a letter of support for the proposal along with Christchurch Parish Council who fully supports the proposal and they have submitted a detailed response which is in the report. He stated that the proposal will give continuity for one of the largest family farms in the area and family farms play an important role in the local rural economy, with the applicant advising him that they are also in discussions to take on a further 250 acres under contract farming.

Mr Hall stated that the proposal sites the dwelling where officers have shown in line with a row of cottages along frontage linear development in Flood Zone 2 and had it been sited to the north of the farm buildings that would fall in Flood Zone 3. He explained that the applicants have confirmed that to the north of the current farm buildings they are considering further expansion of either a grain store, machinery store or both.

Mr Hall recalled a very similar application in 2019 which was determined under the current Local Plan which was approved for an agricultural worker dwelling on a 1200-acre farm at Fallow Corner Drove in Manea which was approved against the officer’s recommendation and was located in Flood Zone 3 whereas the proposal before the committee today is in Flood Zone 2. He made the point that the proposal is very similar application and is located in the next village and on inspection looks a very nice dwelling.

Mr Hall stated that the applicant currently resides in one of the starter homes on site that officers have indicated to the committee, with these cottages being what he would identify as being two up, two down cottages comprising of a kitchen, living area, bathroom downstairs and upstairs having two bedrooms. He explained that the property that the applicant currently resides in on the farm is in reality a one-bedroom property because his long-term partner, who also works in agriculture, uses that as an office and, therefore, it is a one bed property.

Mr Hall added that the applicant is looking to the future and might want to start a family and he wants to live in a larger property and stay on the farm. He stated that those cottages are not owned by an individual, but they were purchased and owned in 1993 by the farm and the income from them goes into the farm.

Mr Hall added that there is a great deal of support for the application and there are no objections from any persons in Christchurch. He made the point that the Highways Officer, Environmental Health and Parish Council have no concerns, with the applicant being fully aware that if the proposed dwelling is approved it will be subject to an agricultural tie and he reiterated that this is an established farming business that wishes to expand and secure its future growth going forward and on the previous application it was stated that Fenland is Open for Business.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that Mr Hall has spoken about the expansion of the farm, and she asked why the demonstration of need was not made evident and clear in the application? Mr Hall stated that it is his understanding that the Cheffins report demonstrates the need here for two persons to be on site so, in his opinion, the agricultural consultant has demonstrated that need in the report, and it is the Council's agricultural consultant who disagrees.

·         Councillor Connor asked Mr Hall to clarify how many pigs are actually on the site? Mr Hall confirmed that the pig fattening unit has 1050 pigs, and they get brought in at a lower weight, fattened up and then taken to the abattoir at Spalding.

·         Councillor Marks asked Mr Hall to point out on the presentation screen where the pigs are located? Mr Hall explained that the actual pig fattening unit is not shown on the map but to the left there is a track at the top of the slide and the unit is to the rear of the sheds.

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to the five existing dwellings and asked for clarity with regards to the rents coming from those dwellings being reinvested in the farm. Mr Hall clarified that the farm owns those cottages, they brought them with the farm in 1993 and the money from the tenancies get reinvested into the farm. He added that it is his understanding that the starter homes which are owned by the farm are only occupied for a short period of time before the tenants move on.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he understands that an agricultural tie will be affixed to the property, and he questioned whether the dwellings will be occupied by people who work on the farm as well. Mr Hall confirmed that the new dwelling would be occupied by the farmer’s son who is a director of the company and works permanently on the farm so that would be solely occupied by him.

·         Councillor Connor stated that 1300 pigs must be very labour intensive, and he struggles to think how just one person can look after those pigs. Mr Hall expressed the view that it is his understanding with pig farming that there is quite a high fatality rate and if you cannot attend to the pigs in an emergency. He added the Mr Gladwin and Mr Gladwin Senior are on site, but it is very labour intensive.

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

·         Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that he feels that there is good reason to be on site if it is tied into the business which it does seem to be and equally with livestock, with their having been various other applications where farmers and contractors have submitted applications who have had livestock and crops to deal with and who operate 24 hours a day. He stated that he knows the area well and he does not think that it will look out of keeping, with it being just one very long road that goes up to a river and, in his view, the proposal is for a modern type farmhouse, which he is minded to support.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that Fenland is Open for Business and the application is to have a dwelling on site to support a livestock business. He stated that he is not an expert in farming, but he is aware that livestock requires people to be on site if you have large quantities of animals and, therefore, he is inclined to support the proposal.

·         David Rowen stated that he fully accepts the need for somebody to be living on site in connection with the livestock but as the Council’s own consultant has recognized that is fulfilled to a degree by the existing farmhouse within the centre of the complex. He added that the agent has confirmed that the son of the applicant who the new property is intended for already lives on the site and, therefore, that is effectively two people associated with the farm who are on site who can provide that welfare for the animals. David Rowen stated that there are already two dwellings on the site associated with the farm that can provide that welfare requirement and he added that planning policy is extremely clear that new dwellings in the countryside should only be permitted where there is a clear functional need and in this case that functional need is already being addressed by the properties that are on site and, therefore, from a planning policy point of view there is no justification for a new dwelling on site and the fact that a nicer house can be built and that it is perhaps more convenient to build a new house rather than extend one of the existing ones, it is not an essential need there so from a planning policy point there is no justification for a new dwelling to be built at this site.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that in relation to a worker’s dwelling as David Rowen has stated the policy refers to evidential need and the independent review of the document that was submitted stated at best marginal and for a professional document, in his opinion, this is a very low value to what was submitted and their professional opinion is that there is a very marginal at best need to put an additional workers dwelling on this site. He added that as a Council it is acknowledged by the independent review undertaken that there is a need for a dwelling on the site to deal with the business in a functional and an operational manner on a day-to-day basis but that is being met and by another dwelling on the site so there are already two homes. Matthew Leigh made the point that it then needs to be decided whether there is need above that for a further additional dwelling and if it is because there are a certain number of pigs or because there is a certain amount of grain that is a decision the Council makes, however, this decision would have to be repeated for every applicant. He expressed the view that there is one farmhouse on this site and there is another dwelling being occupied on this site by people that work on this farm and that meets the operational needs of this business and in relation to sequential test there is other land within the site and within the District that does not fall within flood zones that are highly likely to be susceptible to flooding. Matthew Leigh added that it is still an area where the Government directs housing away from and that needs to be a material planning consideration. He made the point that the sequential test does not have to be passed if it is considered that there is a specific reason and in this instance as was explained in the presentation there is other land under the applicant’s control that could accommodate a dwelling. Matthew Leigh expressed the opinion that his advice would be that future occupiers of this dwelling should not be put at risk from being in a house that could flood, plus the people that if there was a flood would have to rescue them and also thirdly that if it is a flood zone being built on, there are only limited resources to rescue people and to save those people it actually puts people that are already in flood zones at risk and that is one of the reasons why dwellings should not be built in flood zones.

·         Councillor Hicks asked whether the report is considering what is on site now or is it taking into consideration what it will be in three years’ time? Matthew Leigh stated that it is his understanding it was taken from what was submitted with the application and the agent has raised additional information but that should not be a consideration for this application because it is not in front of the committee in a formal process as there is no business plan and no evidence. He added that if the applicant comes forward and there is growth in the business and they decide that they do need an additional house then they should submit at that time.

·         Councillor Marks made the point that he appreciates the officer’s advice with regards to flood risk, however, when the committee considered an application three years ago, the applicant needed to be on site 24 hours a day and mitigation was added so that the dwelling was raised 1.5 metres out of the ground and, therefore, there could be mitigation measures put in place which could be conditioned for the current proposal. He expressed the view that when considering the welfare of the applicant and his family they have a right to start a family which will mean he needs more space in his home and the agent has advised that the applicant is using one of the two bedrooms as an office currently and he expressed the opinion that extra bedrooms should be encouraged instead of overcrowding.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that he was not in post when that particular application was determined, however, an application does not have to pass a sequential test, explaining that if there was a blank scheme for a farm for an agricultural workers dwelling where there was no agricultural workers dwelling at the moment so there was a need for this site which at the moment the Council’s independent report is saying there is not but if there was a need that may be a reason to allow a site in the flood zone because the need outweighs the harm. He added that in the Council’s independent review it says there is a marginal need at best so that is very different to where it states there is definitively a need and there is no occupation at the moment. Matthew Leigh made the point that he does not know the other site that Councillor Marks was referring to, however, that site may have had no other land that was safe from flooding whereas the current application site does have other land that is safe from flooding and, therefore, consideration should be given to building the dwelling there before it is built in a place that is at a high risk of flooding. He expressed the view that his professional advice in this instance is for those two reasons he has given it would be very difficult for the Council to argue robustly that there is a reason that this site should be allowed to be built on when it is at risk of flooding. Matthew Leigh added that with regards to the welfare of the family it is not a material consideration for the committee as decision makers in the planning system as there is no requirement in front of members to evidence that it has to be this gentleman on site, it could be somebody else as the agent has implied that there are multiple workers on the site and this is about ease for the applicant, about the quality of life of the applicant and that is not what the committee are in place to determine and members should be considering and determining land use and to determine applications for their lifetime and to look at the planning merits. He explained that the room currently being used as office space was for the applicant’s partner who works for a different company but these points are actually not material considerations and unless they are relevant to the application which are laid down in law then they should not be considered.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether the application could be deferred in order for a business plan to be submitted by the applicant. She added that the agent has stated that the applicant wishes to expand, and, in her view, it would be useful if there was a business plan which could back up the actual need. David Rowen explained that with regards to the information that has been submitted with the application, there has been some financial information submitted in respect of the agricultural operation which proves that the business is a viable business and, therefore, there is no doubt about the viability of the business. He added that consideration need to be given to the agricultural need and the fact that ultimately that this is more than accommodated for with the existing occupation on site.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that if members wish to defer then that is within their gift, however, in his view, he does not think that any further information received would differ significantly to that already submitted.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the applicant has stated that he has a report which dictates that there is a need for extra staff here and even the Council's own report says minimal, but it is not marginal and that shows that there is still a need. He expressed the view that looking after that volume of pigs must require significant work. Councillor Benney expressed the view that the best place for a business owner to be is with his business as it adds security and there is also animal welfare to be considered. He made the point that the words ‘minimal need’ has been used and that, in his view, shows that there is need. Councillor Benney added that there is building in Flood Zone 2 which is fully mitigated, and the land will be built up like it always is and committee need to decide whether they accept that there is a need for this and in which case that overrules other aspects of planning. He made the point that it is a good application and there is a need as the pigs need looking after and the Council should be helping businesses wherever it can in his view.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that the report is an independent report and it states at best marginal and, in his opinion, that is about as low as you probably get in a professional independent report. He expressed the view that it is very rare that an independent report would states explicitly no need. Matthew Leigh made the point that there are already at least two people tied to the business that live on this site as there are multiple units and members need to consider whether there is an evidenced need for a further property on this site and the answer is not irrespective of anything else because there are actually already six properties on this site.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked whether the other units on the site are occupied by persons who are working on the farm? David Rowen expressed the view that the occupation of the other units that are on site is irrelevant and the application which has been submitted is for an additional dwelling to accommodate the son of the applicant who currently resides already in one of the properties on site. He added that the Council’s agricultural consultant was commenting upon the information submitted with the application and at no point within that is there actually any reference to the fact that there is already somebody living on site or a second dwelling on the site occupied and, therefore, in terms of the marginal need that was concluded on a theoretical basis rather than there is actually somebody practically already on site. Councillor Imafidon questioned that if the units on site were all occupied by people who work on the farm why nine additional units are needed and not maybe one or two units.

·         Councillor Connor clarified that it is only one additional unit which has been proposed.

·         Matthew Leigh explained that in the officer’s professional opinion the application is recommended for refusal.

It was proposed by Councillor Mrs French that the application be refused as per the officer’s recommendation, which was not supported by other members.

It was proposed by Councillor Hicks to defer the application to allow the applicant to provide more detailed information as well as a business plan, which was not supported by other members.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions in conjunction with the proposer and seconder and to include an agricultural tie condition.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that there is the need for the additional dwelling on site and that mitigation measures can be included to protect the dwelling from flooding.

(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 asked for it to be noted that he sits on March East Internal Drainage Board along with Councillor Mrs French and Councillor Hicks)