Agenda item

To determine the application.

Tracy Ranger presented the report.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson explained that the application is seeking full planning permission for the construction of an occupational dwelling which is required for the effective and safe operation of Sims Contract Furniture. She explained that the Sims family have been on the site since 1994 where the applicant’s family operated an upholstery business which has evolved into Sims Contract Furniture, which designs and manufactures high-end bespoke furniture and their clients include restaurants, pubs and ither venues.

Mrs Jackson added that over the recent years, the business has expanded rapidly which has meant that the workshop buildings have need to be extended on site and also the need to change the layout of the yard area and this is noted in the planning history. She explained that the business has just purchased another company and that will amalgamate with Sims Contract Furniture, and now this has been secured the applicant can look at the logistics of extending the building, with the business employing 10 people and, therefore, having a meaningful contribution to the rural economy.

Mrs Jackson added that the rapid growth of the growth of the company as well as the increased number of high value products and materials on the site has meant an increased risk of security, which she is aware that this is not strictly a justification for a new dwelling, however, the applicant wishes to reside on the site in order to protect his business which has evolved over the years to make it the successful enterprise that it is now. She stated that the proposal is part of a natural evolution, and it is much like any other rural business within Fenland, with the applicant having made the point that there is a fear of crime within the area, and she has reviewed the crime statistics for that particular postcode and there were four crimes reported within the last year, and she sympathises with the applicant’s position.

Mrs Jackson stated that there is an existing dwelling on the site, which is known as Plash Farmhouse, however, that is occupied and is not available for the applicant and his family to use to help look after the business. She added that the application has been recommended for refusal as it is considered that there is no need for the proposal in accordance with Policy LP3 and Paragraph 84 of the NPPF, however, she asked members to consider the fact that the proposal would support a local and successful rural business by reducing crime and fear of crime, with it also allowing the applicant to be on site in order to take deliveries and to work late to meet the demands of the business.

Mrs Jackson stated that on the basis that the need for the dwelling is established the second reason for refusal relating to the sequential test falls away and this is because there is an essential need for this particular dwelling to be in this particular location. She made the point that on passing the sequential test, the exception test must be applied and she added that the site specific Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that the proposal is technically safe from flooding and, in her view, the benefits gained from supporting a rural enterprise as set out in the NPPF would comprise a significant benefit to the rural economy and in turn comprising a community benefit, therefore, the exception test is passed, and the proposal would comply with local and national flood risk policies.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that the third reason for refusal relates to subjective matters, and it states that the proposal would cause harm to the open character of the area as the proposal is a cramped form of development, but she would suggest that the dwelling has been carefully designed to appear as a traditional farmstead positioned within the cluster of existing buildings rather than spreading the built form out into the open countryside. She explained that the design of the proposal reflects the design of the neighbouring property at Plash Farmhouse by including matching materials and window detailing and, in her opinion, she does not see how the proposal would cause visual harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Mrs Jackson made the point that the proposal is for a new dwelling required to support a rural business and the recent increase in the scale of the business has triggered the need for greater security and an on-site presence. She explained that supporting rural businesses meets the aspirations of Section 6 of the NPPF and she asked the committee to consider granting planning permission.

Members asked Mrs Jackson the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked why she has mentioned the word safety during her presentation? Mrs Jackson stated that she meant to use the word security. Councillor Marks questioned the impact that the business will have on the residents in the next-door property by it operating later in the evenings and he asked whether it is a family member who lives in it? Mrs Jackson stated that it is an elderly family member who occupies the house currently and the new dwelling is for the applicant and his young family who run the business. Councillor Marks asked whether the security on site at the present time is the elderly mother? Mrs Jackson confirmed that is the case.

·         Councillor Connor referred to the company amalgamating with another business, and asked whether the 2 businesses will both operate from Plash Drove? Mrs Jackson explained that the other business was from Long Sutton and the applicant has purchased that business who were a woodworking business, and the plan is for them to operate from Plash Drove. Councillor Connor asked whether the intention is to erect another building on the site in order to expand the site. Mrs Jackson explained that planning permission exist for an extension and a reconfiguration of the business yard area. She added that owner has not taken any steps to date, as they were waiting to find out the outcome of the purchase of the Long Sutton business and the current application before considering the logistical work to develop the site.

·         Councillor Benney asked how many employees does the site have currently and is that figure likely to increase? Mrs Jackson stated that at the current time there are 10 employees including the applicant and it is her understanding that one employee is coming from Long Sutton.

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

·         Councillor Marks made the point that he has concerns that there is a property on the site which is already lived in and the committee have previously given approval for other applications for potato stores and for farmers who need to live on site. He questioned whether it is a necessity for this business to live on site and as there is a property on the site already are the committee going to open up a can of worms with regards to working times after 5pm to 6pm at night and should something happen to the elderly relative, somebody else may take up occupation of Plash Farmhouse and, therefore, he does have slight reservations with regards to the application.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he does have a slight worry but added that Fenland is Open for Business, and he does feel that he can support the proposal. He added that the applicant has purchased another company and whilst there is only one other employee moving across they have already got planning permission for expansion and it has been said before that the best security is for someone to live on site. Councillor Connor stated that members need to be consistent as they have approved other applications in the past where business owners have lived on site and he will be minded to go against the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Benney made the point that the business is investing and for anybody to be investing in their business in the current climate should be commended. He added that whilst the business is only going to employ an additional employee, there is always the possibility that the business could relocate outside of Fenland and the area could lose the business altogether. Councillor Benney made the point that whilst there is an elderly lady living on site for security, in his view, the risk to her is greater than the security that she could offer and as family members get older it is a nice thing to do by caring for your relatives and the best security deterrent for the business is to have somebody living on site, as opposed to cameras and sensors as you never know when the occupier of the house is going to appear. He added that the committee have passed applications for security prevention in rural areas, and it is a known fact that there is crime in rural areas, with policy being a bit of grey area, and the site is not located in the middle of nowhere and it does have purpose to it and he explained that he could the support the proposal. Councillor Benney stated that if somebody is prepared to invest then they should be supported.

·         Councillor Connor stated that if the Council are minded to approve the application then a condition could be added to reflect that the new dwelling is linked with the business.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that if it is possible to add a condition to any approval then that would sway him to approve the application as he was in two minds as to whether the application should be approved. He added that the application does not comply with policy and the fact that it is not agricultural or horticultural, it is not necessary to have a dwelling on the site as it is a furniture manufacturing and assembly business, however, if it can be conditioned, he will be inclined to support it.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he sometimes has reservations when adding conditions for properties in conjunction with businesses as at some point the business will be sold again or the residents will want to move. He added that he agrees with the point made by Councillor Benney with regards to businesses moving out of the Fenland area and in this case the applicant is expanding and bringing people to the area. Councillor Marks added that he sees no reason to add a condition, and he will support the application as it is.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the Council’s strapline is ‘Fenland is Open for Business’, and he does not feel that businesses should be refused and then choose to relocate to another county. He added that the business is in Fenland and could expand further over a few years and he agrees with the point raised by Councillor Benney that the applicant should be commended for looking to expand in the current climate and he will be supporting the proposal.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that in theory the application is contrary to policy and if members choose to go against planning policy then they need to explain and understand why. He added that if members think that there is a particular need for the business to have a dwelling on the site then he would advise the members that consideration should be given to tie the dwelling into the business in some way. Matthew Leigh stated that in reality market forces are changing at the moment and if planning permission is given with no tied condition then if the applicant wished they would be able to build the dwelling and sell it as a plot immediately. He explained that all the material considerations which have been given weight to as a Council in allowing it have fallen away and it has not been able to enforce that. Matthew Leigh stated that he is very aware of the point made by Councillor Marks with regards to flexibility going forward and he suggested that if members were looking to impose a condition then it should be tied to the property or an agricultural dwelling in the future which would allow for some flexibility in the future if for some reason the owner looked to relocate, however, the proposed dwelling may not be necessary for the business because the other dwelling exists. He explained that the agricultural aspect added to the condition would allow some flexibility for a future occupier to reside in the property in an area where the Council would not necessarily be supporting a dwelling and there would still be a benefit for it in the future.

·         David Rowen advised members that security is not a material planning consideration which Mrs Jackson also acknowledged. He added that there is a dwelling on the site and, in his view, members appear to be giving quite a bit of weight to the expansion of the company and he explained that the planning permission which was granted for the new industrial building on the site was granted in 2021 and as Mrs Jackson stated that development has not happened to date and as the company has purchased another company they may look to relocate in the future. David Rowen added that he does have concerns that members appear to be holding quite significant weight towards something which is quite tenuous at this point in time.

·         Councillor Connor added that he was under the impression that the applicant had acquired the business and was moving the business to Plash Drove.

·         Councillor Marks stated that safety is something that has been mentioned previously and the business is a woodworking business who by the sounds of it will want to work out of hours. He questioned whether having somebody else living on the site reflects the decision coming back? David Rowen stated that he can think of a number of other woodworking and other businesses who also have a safety element to them who work 24 hours a day and 7 days a week and they do not have any residential accommodation associated with them such as any business on an industrial estate and, therefore, he does not feel that aspect carries any weight.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Connor and agreed that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation with authority delegated to officers to determine appropriate conditions including tying the dwelling to the business.

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that there is no purpose to build the dwelling anywhere else other than on the site, they do not feel that the dwelling will harm the character of the local area and the need and requirements of the business outweigh the reasons for refusal.

(Councillor Imafidon stated that he has had business dealings with the company in 2018-2019, but he is not pre-determined and will approach the application with an open mind)