Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report and drew members attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Alex Miscandlon of Fenland District Council and Whittlesey Town Council. Councillor Miscandlon stated that whilst Whittlesey Town Council objected to the application, they are not against objecting to businesses in the area and actively encourage them, but the reason the Town Council objected to the proposal was due to the number of complaints that the Town Council received from residents of Eldernell Lane and residents residing in properties leading up to the application area. He stated that the application area is at the furthest point from the A605, and he explained that there are no passing places along Eldernell Lane or in the private road to allow vehicles to pass each other, which is quite dangerous and some vehicles who use the access road do so at significant speed.

Councillor Miscandlon explained that he was alerted to the issue by some of the residents of Eldernell Lane with regards to the attitude of some of the drivers that visit the premises, and the road is not suitable for speeding or heavy goods vehicles although they do use the road. He referred to the officer’s report and stated that the recommendation is for a 7.5 tonne lorry, but he is aware that there have been 18 wheeled vehicles with gravel using the roadway and there has also been a 9-metre transport vehicle for visitors using the road, which is 30 ft long  and the turning into the private road from Eldernell Lane with a 30ft vehicle would be very difficult and as such in his view is not tenable.

Councillor Miscandlon explained that there is an alternative entrance located off the A605, which leads into the rear of the premises and that would not interfere with any of the residents in Eldernell Lane. He stated that he would like to see the application deferred to allow the outstanding issues to be remedied or refuse the application due to its non-compliance with highway safety. 

Councillor Miscandlon made the point that he disagrees with the point made in the report that there are no highway safety issues due to the fact that the residents who live in the road feel that there are and are having to suffer a constant barrage from the vehicles who are using the road. He expressed the opinion that there needs to be a  solution to this issue and the health and wellbeing of the resident who live there needs to be considered as they purchased their homes in this location to live a quiet rural life.

Councillor Miscandlon added that they are being interrupted in their leisure time by people coming down the lane, being verbally abusive to them, urinating in their driveways and conducting themselves inappropriately, which is not fair. He made the point that the applicant needs to be wary of who uses the facility and an alternative entrance off of the A605 would be highly desirable and whilst he is aware that the roadway would need to be made up to an appropriate standard that is the responsibility of the applicant to do so and not for the local authority.

Members asked Councillor Miscandlon the following questions:  

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he did not think it would be possible to speed along the road due to the speed humps on the road. Councillor Miscandlon explained that he lives in close proximity to Eldernell Lane, and he is aware of the speeding vehicles, and that there have been some very near misses. He added that cars are also using people’s driveways in order to allow other vehicles to pass which is not acceptable.

·         Councillor Marks stated that there have been a couple of planning applications which have been before the committee over the last two or three years and the issue of speeding vehicles has never been an issue previously and he questioned why this now seems to be causing a concern. Councillor Miscandlon stated that speeding traffic has been an issue which was raised previously and remains an issue.  

·         Councillor Marks stated that when he visited the site, he counted seven passing places albeit not official passing places. Councillor Miscandlon stated that there are people’s driveways, a farm entrance and by the turning for the actual private road there is a section on the left-hand side which allows the lorries to swing into that section. He added that the owners of the private driveways that people use as passing places are perfectly within their rights to install a gate on the end of the driveways to stop that happening. Councillor Miscandlon expressed the view that to make an official passing place is paramount, for safety and highway safety and it would alleviate any issues. He made the point that the alternative road off of the A605 would also alleviate that problem and would lead directly to the application site.

·         Councillor Booth stated that it is possible that agricultural vehicles can use the road without any limitations on size of width or length of those vehicles. He added that the view of the County Council is that there can be no restrictions imposed on somebody else if that existing use is there particularly for agricultural purposes. Councillor Miscandlon stated that the agricultural vehicles go into the field on the left-hand side and do a turn in order to go into the private road. He added that the owner of the thatched cottage has stated that on numerous occasions, lorries go up, reverse into the field and then go straight across as they cannot access the private road any other way due to the tight nature of the road layout. Councillor Miscandlon stated that the officer report makes reference to a 9-metre vehicle which is 30 ft and 7.5 tonne, expressing the view that 7.5 tonne lorries are not that big, but it is the weight of the vehicles which needs to be considered.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Robert Cowsill, an objector to the proposal. Mr Cowsill stated that he has a long association with Eldernell due to his involvement with the bird sanctuary and conservation work on Eldernell Lane. He made the point that the Manor House is a perfect location for a country house for a local businessman, however, as a location for a party and events palace it is totally inappropriate.

Mr Cowsill stated that the applicant appears to be successful in gathering support for the proposal with many of the expressions of support but, in his opinion, many of those supporting comments have a hidden meaning. He made the point that those supporters may not be aware that by supporting the proposal they are going to be damaging one of the factors that they wish to promote.

Mr Cowsill referred to the officer’s report and stated that policy LP16 requires the proposal to not adversely effect the landscape character of the surrounding area but expressed the view that the landscape character is the Fens natural character area including the strong presumption of tranquillity and there is no way that the proposal would enhance the tranquil environment. He expressed the view that he finds it strange that the officers’ comments do not actually concern the nature of the application and the comments seem to be based on a physical application which it is but only in a very small part and appears to ignore the change of use.

Mr Cowsill made the point that many of the supporters to the proposal appear to be trades people, such as hairstylists, manicurists and stylists and the applicant also explicitly supports these industries but there is no mention of those in the traffic analysis, with the traffic analysis making it appear that all the services are managed from the organisation based at the house and it explicitly calls for support from local trades. He added that there is a huge difference between the nature of the traffic for agricultural activities and people and wildlife in the countryside are quite used to that but that is quite different to an array of cars turning up for an event.

Mr Cowsill added that the officer recognises that there will be some bunching but then appears to dismiss that fact which, in his opinion, is incorrect as he expects that over a one-hour period close to midnight there is bound to be some sort of disturbance. He added that with regards to the red line it appears to include the private road which forms the first part of Eldernell Lane, which the applicant enjoys and has access rights over that road but ,in his view, the access rights do not extend to re-engineering the property that he does not own and designating passing places.

Mr Cowsill stated that within the certificate of ownership on the application it states that the applicant is required to have notified the owner of any part to which the application relates and he stated that this has not been done and, therefore, in his opinion it seems to be quite arrogant to re-engineer somebody else’s property without following the correct protocol. He asked the committee to refuse the application and if they choose to approve the proposal, he would like to see the conditions modified to reflect that there be no Sunday working or the number of events to be restricted to 40 days per year.

Members asked Mr Cowsill the following questions:

·         Councillor Booth stated that Mr Cowsill has stated that there had been no notice supplied to the neighbouring owner and he asked Mr Cowsill how he is aware of that. Mr Cowsill explained that he spoke to the neighbouring owner earlier that morning who confirmed that fact.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Heath Thomas speaking on behalf of the applicant and Mr Chris Walford, the agent. Mr Thomas stated that as the committee are aware they are required to determine the application in line with the development plan and it is the applicant’s case that the proposed use of the site is supported in policy terms and there appears to be no policy conflict so as to indicate the principles of development cannot be supported. He expressed the view that the proposal accords with both local and national planning policies and the objections and concerns raised are not insurmountable and they can be overcome and can be satisfactorily addressed by the scheme as it stands or by the imposition of planning conditions which are outlined in the officer’s report.

Mr Thomas made the point that the same view is supported by the Planning Officer in their report which, in his opinion, is very comprehensive and he also adopts the assessment made by the officer on behalf of the applicant and also supports the final conclusion made that the proposal is considered acceptable and accords with local and national planning policies as it represents no adverse harm in terms of material planning considerations. He added that amenity concerns of traffic disturbance and noise can be mitigated by the use of appropriate planning conditions, with the officer’s report indicating that the application is compliant and accords with policies LP2, LP6, LP2, LP15 and LP16.

Mr Thomas made the point that the application has been properly consulted and out of the standard consultees the only objection has been made by the Town Council, with the concerns of the Town Council being addressed both within the report and the proposed conditions. He explained that the principle concerns are of noise from the site and also from traffic and he stated that the applicant has an established right of way for all purposes and at all times which would be the same for any visitor to the site, with any matters raised with regards to access ways and those on the private road not being considerations for the committee as they are about enforcing the rights of way that the applicant has and that would need to be considered in a separate forum.

Mr Thomas explained that the Highway Authority have considered the proposed development and have found it to be acceptable and he added that the impact will be no greater than that associated with other consented uses of the site such as things which have gone before and happened on the site. He made the point that the proposal will have no greater impact than anything else which has happened and the design and access statement which has been updated sets out the previous historical movements along with the attendance records for actual events which have taken place over the last three years, with those figures providing an indication on the number of persons and vehicles which have attended the site.

Mr Thomas added that he has had discussions with both the Police and Highways, and he is confident that there are no highway safety issues which have been reported, explaining that when the premises was discussed by Licensing Committee, the Police raised no concerns with regards to crime, disorder or anti-social behaviour including coming to and from the premises. He explained that the Highways Officers have proposed a condition limiting the size of the vehicles during events and for the purpose of events the applicant would be quite happy to agree with the committee that any vehicles over 9 metres in length would be prohibited.

Mr Thomas stated that there is no legal limit of weight on the road and any sign which has been put up would have been done so by the landowner and not by the Highway Authority, with there being no unacceptable impact on highway safety or cumulative impact on the road network which would mean that the application could be refused on highway grounds. He stated that the proposed conditions are agreeable with the applicant which means the limitation of the frequency of events to two per week and then limiting the number of occasions in a year to 52 including the start and end times of the events, with the hours as stated in the condition are also what is detailed within the premises licence.

Mr Thomas stated that, with regards to noise levels, the Environmental Health Officer has agreed with the findings of an acoustic and noise report which was commissioned by the applicant and the Environmental Health Team have received no formal complaints but state that there might be the potential for noise which can be mitigated against, and the conditions are set out in 12.5 of the officer’s report. He explained that in terms of proposal there was a modification detailed at paragraph 12 in terms of recommendation that the operating hours include Sundays and Public Holidays which was already agreed but the Planning Officer did not mention this.

Members asked Mr Thomas and Mr Walford the following questions:

·         Councillor Booth asked for clarity with regards to the neighbour consultation concerning the right of way and he asked whether any consultation has taken place with the neighbours? Mr Walford stated that there was no formal consultation with neighbours, adding that the applicant does not own all of the road but for a valid application there has to be a red line to an adopted carriageway, and in this case the red line is quite long although it is not within the ownership of the applicant. He added that there is no proposal to modify the road in any way and he added that one of the objectors has stated that the applicant is intending to amend a road without permission but that is not the case. Mr Walford explained that Eldernell Lane is a tarmacked road with speedbumps and there are historic passing provisions along the road which has been the same for many years and has never caused an issue before. He made the point that the unrestricted use has enabled a multitude of different usage and size of vehicles and should the proposal be granted there will be a reduction in the number of agricultural vehicles using the road as they are moving away from that and diversifying the site which will mean it will be more reliant on cars. Mr Walford stated that the main objector is the owner of the part of the road that the applicant does not own, and he added that the main objector is more than aware of the application due to the number of comments that they have made in relation to the application.

·         Councillor Booth referred to the other access point on the A605 and he asked for the thoughts and possibilities of that being used as access? Mr Thomas stated that the applicant does not own that access way and, therefore, has no right to enforce the use of it. He added that the applicant has a right of way over the roadway for all purposes and at all times from a very historic conveyance which is referred to in the statement that the applicants have submitted.

·         Councillor Booth stated that, with regards to the revised condition concerning opening hours, he has interpreted it so that it does not include Mondays at all, and he asked Mr Thomas whether he has understood that correctly? Mr Thomas explained that the applicant was requesting those days which are set out in the officer’s report and he explained that the business does not intend to operate every day of the week with it being Wednesday to Sunday and with no more than 52 occasions in the year and no more than 2 events in any week.

·         Councillor Booth asked for clarity over Bank Holiday Monday opening. Mr Walford stated that there was an anomaly in the initial paperwork by virtue of the fact that it listed Sunday opening hours and then in the following paragraph it stated that there would be no opening on Sundays or bank holidays, when it was pointed out to the Planning Officer the paperwork was duly amended. He explained that the applicant does want to open on a Sunday and will not be looking to open on a Bank Holiday because that is not one of the proposed working days. Mr Thomas added that not all bank holidays fall on a Monday, however, the applicant does not intend to open on a Monday which is why the proposed opening is Wednesday to Sunday, however, they cannot restrict bank holidays if some fall on a Friday.

·         Councillor Booth referred to the revised condition and states that the condition could be interpreted so that events take place on Easter Friday, and he does not think that is what it was looking to be achieved. Mr Thomas stated that there may be events which the applicant would like to hold on a Friday and the Premises Licence which the applicant holds is from Wednesday to Sunday and closed on a Monday and Tuesday. Mr Walford asked the committee whether they are looking to determine that a Friday Bank Holiday is not an openable day? Mr Thomas stated that the applicant would like the Friday to be a day on which they are open even if it falls on a bank holiday. He added that when it states not on Public Holidays it is not on a Bank Holiday Monday or not on any Monday. Mr Thomas made the point that the applicant is looking for Wednesday to Sundays whether it is a normal day or a Public Holiday.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Booth stated that he would like clarity over the bank holiday issue as the way that the current condition reads is if Christmas Day falls on a Friday then the business would be entitled to be open, and he is not sure whether it is something that the committee should be supporting. Gavin Taylor stated that the Planning Officer and applicant have had discussions over the condition which was incorrectly drafted the first time and subsequently corrected and provided in the update report. He explained that there is nothing to suggest that anything other than Monday would not be appropriate but if members wished then it is maybe something that can be included in an update to a condition. Gavin Taylor stated that the applicants have indicated that Good Friday would be agreeable to them and he agrees that other bank holidays may fall on a Friday, however, the premises is an events business and some events do fall over those holiday periods. He expressed the view that he is not sure whether it would fall within the applicant’s business case, and he added that he does not know whether officers hold any evidence to suggest that they would not be appropriate either. Councillor Booth stated that, as he has worked within the retail sector, he is aware that Easter Sunday and Christmas Day are days that are prohibited for opening and he asked whether it would be appropriate that the business would be allowed to operate on those days as the revised condition appears to dictate that opening would be permitted now.

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

·         Councillor Purser stated that he has seen a number of venues sadly close over recent years for various reasons and to see an avenue wishing to expand, in his opinion, is an excellent idea. He added that having listened to Councillor Miscandlon’s presentation where he explained the possibility of using the different entry point whether it would be possible to defer the application whilst this was looked into.

·         Councillor Marks stated that it was his understanding that the agent had stated that the applicant does not have a right of way across the second access and, therefore, in his view, a deferral would not be suitable.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the committee need to consider what is in front of them today and they should not be looking at what the other options and possibilities around the application site are.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that the leisure and entertainment industry is a very difficult industry to work in during the current climate, making the point that Fenland is open for business, and he does not see why the applicant should be discouraged or stifled when they are making efforts to establish and expand their business. He stated that the applicants are running their business from a premises that they own, it is located via a roadway which has been in existence for a long time and when he visited the site, he did not see any issue with speed when he drove down the road due to the very harsh speed bumps on the road and any normal vehicles speeding along the road would most certainly cause damage to their vehicle. Councillor Imafidon added that he is unsure how much land that the applicant owns but it has been there for a long time, but he will be looking to support the application.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she visited the site and expressed the view that the road is awful, adding that when she was leaving the site she met a refuse freighter from the Council, and she used a passing place and both vehicles were able to pass. She stated that she cannot see how any vehicle would be able to speed along the road. Councillor Mrs French reiterated the point that Fenland is open for business and the Council should be supporting business, making reference to another business that closed many years ago and became derelict. She explained that the committee gave approval a few months ago for that building to be demolished and for a dwelling to be built in its place. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that businesses do need support and whilst she appreciates the concerns and views of the Town Council, the applicant has confirmed that they do not have control over the other access point and the committee must determine what is in front of them and nothing else.

·         Councillor Booth stated that he has heard the concerns of Whittlesey Town Council, and the highways report answers those comments which the Town Council have made, with the committee needing to give regard to the comments made by the Highway Authority as they are the experts in such matters. He stated that he also lives in a rural area and the tractors at this time of year who are undertaking harvest probably cause a lot more disturbance than cars and he does not see that as a reason for the application to be refused. Councillor Booth added that Fenland is open for business and the business is a rural location where the applicants are trying to diversify in order to make it sustainable and for what is before the committee he can see no reason for it to be refused. He added that he is still slightly concerned over the opening on bank holidays and he added that part of the reason for adding conditions are to consider the amenity of the neighbouring properties and if consideration could be given to the conditions it may go some way of alleviating the concerns of the neighbours. Councillor Booth expressed the view that he would like to see the condition revised further to exclude Easter Sunday and Christmas Day.

·         Councillor Marks stated that when he visited the site, he met another couple of cars and both vehicles were able to pass by pulling over to give way, adding that he also met five dog walkers on the road who moved over onto the verge where there was ample space to let vehicles pass. He stated that there is no way vehicles can speed on the private road due to the speed bumps and he made the point that Fenland is open for business and he will be supporting the application.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he is concerned about imposing conditions onto the application with regards to closing on a bank holiday if it falls on a Friday as that is when many events take place, with some people planning their events to take place on a bank holiday specifically if it falls on a Friday.

·         Councillor Booth stated that he is only referring to Christmas Day and Easter Sunday due to the significance of them and other venues have to adhere to closures on those days.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that as a Planning Committee to put restrictions on any type of trading day, in his view, is wrong. He made the point that there are no issues with it operating on a Sunday at the present time as it is working, and the Licensing Team are in place to deal with any problems or issues that may arise with the premises, with it being a licensing issue rather than a planning issue and he would not be content to add restrictions onto any planning conditions. 

·         Councillor Marks stated that he is not convinced that there needs to be a restriction on vehicles, limiting them to 7.5 tonnes, as it appears it is only a resident who has added a sign to that effect.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that many very large vehicles use Gaul Road, Burrowmoor Road and Knights End Road who are restricted to 7.5 tonnes, and, therefore, she has no idea how restricting vehicles to that size is going to be achieved.

·         Councillor Booth referred to a point made by Councillor Benney with regards to adding restrictions onto an application and he stated that there is a condition that is restricting the premises from operating from Wednesday to Sunday anyway and all he was suggesting was that the business should be closed on those two extra bank holidays in order to ensure residential amenity given the nature of concerns that have been raised.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked the Legal Officer to provide some advice with regards to restricting opening on Easter Sunday Bank Holiday and Christmas Day Bank Holiday. The Legal Officer stated that in principle it is permissible to have a condition like that and the committee would need to be satisfied that it met the six tests for planning conditions, with in in planning terms is it necessary, is it reasonably required and is it proportionate. She added that there is a legitimate point which has been made about which of the Council’s departments is the proper function to police matters if concerns arise and noise issues would principally be a licensing consideration and whilst she appreciates that there is a condition attached to the draft permission all that the condition actually does is reflect the decision that the Licensing Committee has already made. The Legal Officer cautioned the committee and explained that whilst it is possible for the committee to do it, she is not convinced that the six tests for a planning condition are met for the Christmas and Easter closure.

·         Councillor Booth expressed the view that in this case the condition should not be affixed to the permission, and he asked whether the original condition reflected the Licensing Committee decision or is the condition in the update report the actual condition as there has obviously been a change. Matthew Leigh stated that as the agent has stated there was an error in the original condition but what has been proposed by officers in the update report is consistent with the decision made by the Licensing Committee. The Legal Officer was provided a copy of the Premises Licence by Mr Thomas and the Legal Officer confirmed that  the planning condition in the update report reflects the Licensing Committee decision and what is contained on the licence.

Proposed by Councillor Imafidon, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation.