Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mrs Baxter, the applicant, and Ian Gowler, the agent. Mrs Baxter stated that she is looking for a new dwelling for her family, to continue living at the same address and to continue providing support for the businesses, with at the current time her family residing with her father-in-law, and she explained that they are all involved with the businesses which are family orientated and are operated from the site where the application is proposed. She explained that her husband works in the family’s construction business and undertakes work in the local area for the local community and she explained that valuable plant equipment and materials are stored at the address along with the holiday let business they operate at the site which is becoming increasingly popular.

Mrs Baxter added that she anticipates that part of the business to grow due to the proposed reservoir and she explained that there are also cattle on site which require looking after. She stated that she is involved with the holiday let business including the arrival and departure of the guests which can be at different times of the day, and she added that she also deals with the security on the site as there have been thefts in the past of diesel and vehicles.

Mrs Baxter explained that it is the intention for the businesses and new dwelling to remain in the family’s ownership and she made the point that whilst that is not a material consideration to give planning permission, it would support local businesses and also give her family its own space.

Mr Gowler stated that there are no technical objections to the proposal, and he explained that the extended roadway to the site is due to highway visibility. He added that the need for the dwelling is due to the expanding family’s requirements and the intention is for the new dwelling to be for Mrs Baxter and her family in connection with the businesses that are already operating on the site.

Mr Gowler added that the holiday let business can mean that guests arrive either early in the morning or late in the evening which is why there is the need for somebody to be there on site. He made the point that Mr and Mrs Baxter are already living at the property and, therefore, it is not an additional home that is being sought it is for residents already living on the site.

Mr Gowler added that he notes an additional reason for refusal is appearance and he referred to the presentation screen which displays the extent of the hedging to the front of the house and the image of the streetscene shows an image which is not quite representative of what the view will be from the road as it will not be visible. He explained that the photos shown in the officer presentation displayed a large gap in the hedge which was there whilst hedging works took place, however, that has been replanted and will be filled in once it grows.

Members asked Mrs Baxter and Mr Gowler the following questions:

·         Councillor Hicks referred to the slide which shows the driveway and he asked whether any consideration was given with regards to a different access point? Mr Gowler stated that the highway visibility standards for that type of road is 245 metres and he explained that a very long section of the road was surveyed to ascertain where the 245 metres could be achieved and from previous experience of the Highway Authority is that they do not normally allow anything less. Councillor Hicks stated that he appreciates the points made, however, in his view, the current access point lends itself to accommodate another 2 or three properties on the site and he questioned whether that is going to be the plan going forward. Mr Gowler stated that to consider further buildings there is not the business need argument as there is with the current proposal, where there is a need for there to be somebody on site to look after the businesses.

·         Councillor Marks questioned that as there are not going to be any additional vehicles, could the current access point not be shared with the other family members? Mr Gowler stated that is achievable and the location plan shows the existing entrance which is on an awkward corner and the 245-metre splay would not be achievable although a sensible splay could be attained. Mr Gowler made the point that the applicants are already living there, the access point is already being used for both of the businesses and he would be happy to omit the proposed access and for the existing access to be used instead. Councillor Marks stated that for a comfort factor it goes some way towards nobody considering a development in the paddock behind it.

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view that the proposal demonstrates the need for somebody to live on site, especially with the holiday lets on the site and asked Mrs Baxter whether she also works with the family building business as well. Mrs Baxter responded that she mainly deals with the holiday lets and undertakes a small amount of secretarial work for the building business.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked whether it is possible to condition and add a tie to the application should it be approved, albeit not an agricultural tie, so that it is tied to the business or the site. Matthew Leigh stated that one of the needs for an agricultural workers dwelling is the need for regular activity outside of reasonable hours and there is a reason why the planning system supports agricultural workers specifically within the National Planning Policy Framework due to the likelihood and the frequency of the unattractive hours and it does not pick out other industries. He explained that he has seen many discussions at planning appeals where applicants have argued that they need a dwelling for security purposes but made the point that there are numerous other security steps that can be taken to protect properties and businesses before a dwelling is built and for that reason he advised members to give that aspect very limited weight. Matthew Leigh referred members to 9.5 of the officer’s report where it states that no planning permission appears to exist for the site to function as a builder’s yard, with only planning permission for the replacement dwelling and change of use of garages to holiday lets apparent in the planning history and members should not be looking to approve an application where there is a potentially unauthorised business operating from the site. He referred to the holiday let accommodation and stated that members need to consider whether in reality the unsociable hours and the number of units should allow it to have a new dwelling when Government policies do not support it. Matthew Leigh added that if members support the proposal then it is likely that a precedent is being set for any rural business to then be considered which is an approach that he would not recommend. He stated that there can be tie added to the application and it would have to be added as a personal permission, however, the viability information for the holiday lets has not been received to confirm that the business is financially viable enough to support a dwelling in its own right and, therefore, in this instance he would advise that a tie should not be added.

·         Councillor Imafidon made the point that with regards to the need on the site for security to be present, he runs a holiday let business and from his experience, just like agriculture, there are very often instances why people arrive late such as accidents or traffic delays and in some cases he has assisted with a check in at 2.00am and, in his view, there is the need for somebody to be on site to look after that aspect of the business. He stated that it has been mentioned that there are details concerning the planning history for the holiday lets and, in his opinion, there is a good plausible reason why somebody needs to be there. Councillor Imafidon added that there have been numerous thefts from construction sites and farms over recent times in Fenland and again that proves that somebody should be on site. He expressed the view that if it can be applied to the agriculture sector then that should also be the case for the holiday let business.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he thinks the points made by Councillor Imafidon are valid especially as he is speaking from personal experience.

·         David Rowen stated that there is already a dwelling on the site and for those instances of late arrivals then there is already somebody living on site who can deal with them. He referred to the actual layout for the application and stated that that, in his view, he would question how effective that the proposed arrangement would be with regards to being able to service those customers arriving for the holiday lets given the physical separation from the operation to the west and that from a practical point of view it does not seem to support that type of operation.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that with regards to the planning guidance and the fact that agricultural dwellings are allowed, security is not a consideration as it is about the functional need for farming and if security was a material consideration then it would mean that every business or factory could have a dwelling on the site to provide security. He stated that members need to consider that there are only three holiday lets on site and, therefore, need to give thought to the fact that there is already a dwelling on the site and whether there is an additional need for another dwelling for someone to be on site for 24 hours a day, seven days a week for three holiday lets. Matthew Leigh added that members need to consider whether the need is so significant in order to go against the adopted planning policies and the lack of evidence that could weigh in favour of the material considerations in relation to the viability and also Government guidance on where dwellings should be sited and, in his view, members should not be going against that.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he knows the site and the location of the property to walk through into the farmyard is no more than 50 metres and he does not feel that it is disjointed from the business. He added that, as the agent has already stated, if the roadway could be reinstated so that there was just one access it would make access far easier. Councillor Marks made the point that with regards to the holiday lets, there is a very large provider and supplier of leeks in the county, located in very close proximity and they have people employed for 24 hours a day. He added that he also recalls an application from a site in Manea where the residents where hot bedding every 8 hours and, therefore, the owners needed to be on site to deal with arrivals and departures.

·         Councillor Marks stated that officers have expressed the view that the house appears to be located too far away and are disjointed from the business. David Rowen made the point that visitors to the site do not know the layout of the site and usually if there is an argument that a dwelling is needed in connection with a business that the business is better linked, located or more closely located than the proposal before the committee. He added that with regards to the point made concerning the alternate access arrangement, the application is a full application and what has been applied for is displayed on the presentation screen and that is what members need to determine.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that it appears that there is a third business operating from the site with regards to the rearing of animals which would lend itself to people being present on the site. She added that the dwelling already on the site has occupants which she presumes are from the older generation and, therefore, to continue with that aspect of business, in her view, would require younger people on site so that they could be on standby to assist with the animal rearing business. David Rowen stated that with regards to animals on site and animal welfare there was very limited information submitted with the application to substantiate that fact, with the focus in the application appearing to be with the construction business and the holiday let operation. He added that there has been no information provided with regards to the number of animals on site and there is no other land which has been indicated as being owned by the applicant and when he drove past the site there only appeared to be 2 horses on site and no evidence of any other animals. Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to paragraph 9.3 where reference to the animal business is made and she added that she has undertaken a site visit, but it is obscured significantly by the laurel hedge.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that the sustainability of the holiday let business also needs to be taken into consideration when taking into account cancelled bookings and loss of business. He added that, when considering the existing dwelling on site, Mrs Baxter explained that her family are currently residing with her father-in-law and partner which, in his opinion, shows that there is a need for an additional dwelling.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to 9.5 of the officer’s report which states that no planning permission appears to exist for the site to function as a builder’s yard and she asked whether the agent has provided any indication that a planning application maybe submitted for that. David Rowen stated that there is no supplementary information which has been submitted to indicate that either an application for planning permission or for a certificate of lawfulness to demonstrate that the builder’s yard is lawful is indicated within the submission. Councillor Mrs French asked David Rowen if he is aware how long the builder’s yard has been there, and he confirmed that he does not know.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that the Local Plan is in place to provide guidance for members to follow and he asked officers to confirm whether approvals should only be given for proposals in the agriculture industry. Matthew Leigh stated that decision makers, whether that be officers, members of the committee or the Planning Inspector, should determine applications in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, with the policy specifically referring to agricultural workers dwellings as that reflects the nature of the district and the historic point with regards to highlighting the need for specific types of accommodation for these properties. He added that there can be material considerations that would mean that a different business could be supported in a similar thrust, however, he added that if that were the case then the guidance and the policy with regards to agricultural workers would need to be looked at. Matthew Leigh stated that consideration would be needed with regards to the business having to be lawful and to have evidence to substantiate its lawfulness and, in this case, discounting the builder’s yard. He added that you would also need to have a level of comfort that the business has a long-term life span, and, in this case, it is a very small concern with it being only three holiday lets and no information with regards to viability has been provided. Matthew Leigh made the point that if permission is granted with the restricted condition and the business goes bust then the existing occupiers will have to move out and in theory the house should remain vacant forever and end up being demolished. He made the point that there is not a policy which dictates that applications can be supported which go against the Council’s actual policy but there should be material considerations in place which make the decision makers comfortable to go against the actual policy. Matthew Leigh expressed the view that the officer’s report outlines the very clear concerns and added that when considering the access and the distances between the properties, it actually considers the aesthetic harms that it has moved away from the other building, along with the physical remoteness of it when considering how it connects, which would not be able to be amended as part of the application because the red area would need to change and, therefore, it would need to be a refusal. Matthew Leigh stated that if the existing access was used the required visibility splays would not be met and the Highway Authority would say that there is an existing visibility splay and will the 1.2 vehicle movements from the site as a result of the new dwelling result in any demonstrable harm which is probably very unlikely and, therefore, there is no requirement to meet the 245-metre distance on an existing access.

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

·         Councillor Marks stated that he would describe the area as a hamlet as there are 5 or 6 other properties there and when considering the size of the proposed dwelling, in his view, it is a sensible three bedroomed family size property, with there being across the road a dwelling which is behind a hedge and further along there are other dwellings together with a digester. He made the point that he does not believe anybody would want to build a property in this location due to the odour from the digester, unless it was tied into their business and Mrs Baxter is involved with the business and whilst disregarding the building business, which could possibly be unlawful, there are buildings there which could in the future be converted into further holiday lets. Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that there is the need for somebody to be on site at the location and Mrs Baxter appears to be the key person involved with the holiday let business. He expressed the view that he is not content with the entrance and feels that it could be made to be just one access point for the whole site. Councillor Marks made the point that he feels that it is a good application, and they already own the land, if they need to purchase a property where else are they going to be able to do that in the local area so that they are close to the holiday lets. He expressed the view that Fenland is Open for Business and with the introduction of the reservoir it is going to bring forward further business.

·         Councillor Benney stated that Councillor Marks has stated that the site is three miles from Manea, and he anticipates that it will be the same distance from Chatteris. He asked for it to be recorded that he has never spoken to Mr Baxter, but he has seen his business vehicles driving around the area as he appears to undertake a great deal of work in the Chatteris area. Councillor Benney stated that to the best of his knowledge it is a family business, and his sons work in the business, with it being a local business who operate their business from the home, and it is a family run operation who are asking the Council to support them. Councillor Benney stated that the number of holiday lets is irrelevant and the decision making comes down to different interpretations of policy and whether certain aspects are given additional weight. He added that it is the committee’s role to consider applications and there are aspects of applications which are not always policy compliant but that is the role of a councillor to bring a personal touch to the determinations, to look at them with compassion and to take into account aspects that are not covered in policy.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he agrees with Councillor Benney with regards to the amount of holiday lets as there is nothing to say that the business will not expand in the future and with the proposed growth in the area, which is likely with the introduction of the reservoir, he will be personally and strongly looking to support a local family business.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that he is not content with the fact that the construction business appears to be operating from the site without permission.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that he wishes to clarify that planning policies cannot be interpreted any differently to how they are written, committee can interpret and give weight to material considerations differently but when policy is read clearly and explicitly it cannot be interpreted any differently. He added that members and officers can give different weight to different material considerations, and it can be said that material considerations outweigh the harm with a policy, but policies cannot be interpreted differently.

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 suitable conditions in consultation with the Chairman, proposer and seconder to include a tie to one of the businesses operating from the site. 

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that there is a need to have people living on the site and they do not agree that it is out of character in the area.

(Councillors Benney, Mrs French, Hicks, Marks and Sennitt Clough declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they have been lobbied on the application)

(Councillor Marks declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Manea Parish Council, but takes no part in planning)