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 Gareth Edwards, the agent. Mr Edwards stated that the business is owned by the applicant and his son, and they have operated from the brownfield site for nearly 20 years, with the business currently employing four members of staff, adding that previously he had employed six people, however, due to not being able to operate equipment at the site he had to let them go. He explained that the equipment was partly funded by the Council in 2020 and is a company which deals with engine electronics and race engine operating all over the country and world.

Mr Edwards explained that the application site has the applicants own converted dwelling to the front of the application proposal and that obscures the application from the street scene on the lane, with a recent approval for a garage block with an annex above to the north of the dwelling which should commence imminently. He made the point that he has worked closely with the planning officer and was delighted to receive an email with an officer’s recommendation for approval, which needed to be signed off and was somewhat disappointed to be then told that the application would be brought before the Planning Committee for determination with a recommendation for refusal.

Mr Edwards added that the business has operated from the site with no real issues and with the new dwelling that has been constructed to the south and the sale of the previous home of the owner to the north it has brought with it more of an issue with noise and he referred to another application in close proximity to the site which is for the conversion of an existing cold store into two dwellings. He stated that the application comes with the support of neighbouring properties, the Parish Council and other statutory consultees.

Mr Edwards added that the suggestion was made with regards to looking into carrying out a Class MA application on the building, however, in his view, it is clear that the structures are not the most attractive and the proposal which is smaller in size than the current is more appropriate and would accord with the neighbouring properties. He explained that the dwelling is to be located in Flood Zone 1 and by removing the business it will reduce the traffic flow to and from site and the applicant is looking to purchase a building on an existing industrial site which the proposal before the committee will provide the revenue to do so.

Mr Edwards stated that the proposal will also allow the applicant to have the use of all his machinery in the one location and to allow the business to progress, with at the current time he is having to use space within other businesses which is disruptive, expensive and time consuming. He explained that the applicant does not own any other buildings to operate from and is keen to have his own premises in order to allow for expansion without causing a nuisance.

Mr Edwards referred to the reasons for refusal and added that the application site falls within a cluster of residential dwellings on Fendyke Lane and following on from other recent approvals will increase the number but made the point that the proposal will not be seen from the road itself due to the applicant’s house and garage block. He reiterated that it is located in Flood Zone 1 and is only the access that is in Flood Zone 2.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Hicks referred to the issue of the initial officer’s recommendation of approval being communicated to the agent to then end up changing to one of refusal. He added that it is not the first time that this has occurred, and he asked officer to provide an explanation. David Rowen stated that most of the agents should know that an indicative informal recommendation from the case officer is not necessarily binding and is always dependent on being reviewed by a more Senior Officer. He added that the report before members sets out the material planning considerations and whilst an email has been sent during the application process indicating that the case officer may be minded to support an application is not a material planning consideration and does not overcome the material issues as set out in the officers report.

·         Councillor Hicks expressed the view that going forward he would suggest the officers do not give any indication of the recommendation as it may give false hope to the applicant and should not form any part of any correspondence. Matthew Leigh stated that he agrees with the points made by David Rowen and added that it will be something that is reviewed to ensure that there is a consistent approach across the authority.

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that an indication should not be given in advance of a final determination. Matthew Leigh stated that the case law is clear, and no individual officer can bind the Council and decisions are made by the committee or delegated to officers. He added that Senior Officers do not proactively look to overturn recommendations and he explained that during his career he had recommendations overturned by a more Senior Officer which did not impact or effect his confidence. Matthew Leigh added that whether or not officers communicate a recommendation it is not a material consideration for the debate and it is the planning agents who are bringing it forward to try and influence the committee which is undermining the planning process and not taking into consideration the fact that the Council are developing and upskilling its officers and making informed decisions as a committee. He made the point that it is actually irrelevant to the committee’s decision-making process and the fact that it is discussed and given credence, in his view, is the issue.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he is sure that members of the committee will debate the application and will be open minded in their decision making.

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

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that when she undertook a site visit, she noticed that there was a sign attached to a telegraph post adjacent to a wheatfield which is very much the open countryside and, in her view, it would not be a good place to build on. She made the point that the actual site was further down the road and, therefore, she was unclear why that planning notice was affixed to the post she saw. Councillor Sennitt Clough added that when she viewed the actual site, she felt that it was open countryside and the point made with regards to the house being built and imposing over the lane, in her opinion, is incorrect.

·         Councillor Marks stated that there appears to be concern with regards to the height and size of the building which he recalls had been an issue some years ago with a property in Wimblington and now that the property has been built out it cannot be identified due to its height. He expressed the view that the proposed site is a barn, and it will still look like a barn with the property next door to it and, in his opinion, he does not see any issue with the size and height of the proposed dwelling.

·         David Rowen stated that, in accordance with the Local Plan, as the site does not fall within the main settlement of Gorefield or Leverington and it is deemed to be an elsewhere location where the Council and national policy indicates that new dwellings should not be allowed unless there is justification such as agricultural workers. He explained that in this case there is a dwelling in an elsewhere location with no functional justification to it and, therefore, the principle of the development is clearly contrary to local policy. David Rowen drew members attention to the presentation screen and stated that with regards to the height, the existing dwelling is 7.6 metres high and the building to the rear can be seen which as part of the proposal would be 2.4 metres higher along with a bigger mass. He referred members to the elevations which are proposed and explained that the mass is different along with the access being in Flood Zone 2 and the fact that there was no sequential information submitted.

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

Proposed by Councillor Sennitt Clough, 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 Chairman, proposer and seconder.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the proposal will clear up the site aesthetically, will not impose on the location and there are a number of other dwellings in the vicinity of the application site already on the same side of the road.