Dwelling and storage shed at Sharman Fabrications Gaul Farm, March

The site

The site contains a workshop, stables, paddock land and parking, lies west of March, and is within Flood Zone 3.

“The site features a corrugated metal workshop building, stables, paddock land and a gravelled parking/turning area. There is an existing gated access off Gaul Road leading to the parking/turning area.”

“The application site is situated within Flood Zone 3 (high risk).”

Officer report

Earlier applications and deferral

Earlier workplace-home applications were refused, while a ménage and workshop use were granted; the committee later deferred this application for more business evidence.

“Reference Description Decision F/YR21/0657/F Formation of a ménage Granted 11/08/2021 F/YR06/1289/O Erection of a workplace home Refused 22/12/2006 F/YR06/1002/O Erection of a workplace home Refused 17/10/2006 F/YR04/3057/F Change of Use of existing building to workshop for the manufacture of playground equipment Granted 07/04/2004”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers found no essential need for a worker to live on site, considered the current journey reasonable, and found the security case insufficient.

“The applicant currently lives 0.6 miles from the application site, which is a 3- minute drive. This is not considered an unreasonable journey time to travel to the site to take collection/delivery of goods within the site. In addition to this, it is unlikely that collection and deliveries would be outside of normal, reasonable working hours.”

“It is also not clear from the submitted information why the applicant living on site would allow for the applicant to be available 24 hours for on call repair works, especially considering the proximity of the applicant’s current address to the application site.”

Officer report

Flooding and rural character

The proposal failed the district-wide flood-risk sequential test and would consolidate sporadic development, harming the open rural character.

“The application site is located within Flood Zone 3. Policy LP14 of the Fenland Local Plan requires new development to be the subject of a sequential test, which aims to direct new development to the areas at the lowest risk of flooding.”

“It is considered that applying the sequential test across the whole of the District, as is the Council’s adopted approach for a site outside the settlement, would result in identifying sites at lower risk, capable of accommodating a single dwelling. Therefore, the proposal is deemed to have failed the sequential test.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

The town council supported approval, highways and ecology raised no objections, environmental health sought contamination conditions, and eight letters supported the application.

“I conclude that the Environmental Health Team do not object to the principle of this application but would like to raise the following observations.”

“Land affected by contamination Historic land use likely to results in the potential for contamination to be left in the soils have ben identified. Site photos also identify made ground and deposits of construction and demolition waste. Therefore, I recommend that the standard contaminated land conditions are applied to this application.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent and applicant told members that the requested business accounts, information about future occupants and business plan had been provided.

The vote

Councillor Marks proposed approval, Councillor Mrs French seconded it, and members agreed to grant permission against the officer recommendation.

“Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation with delegation given to officers to finalise the conditions in consultation with the Chairman, proposer and seconder.”

Minutes

The committee decision

The application was granted with conditions to be finalised by officers because members supported security and economic growth and found no harmful or inappropriate development.

“Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel the application should be approved on security and economic growth grounds, they do not feel that the dwelling will be detrimental or look out of place and that going forward applications such as this should be approved as Fenland is Open for Business, and this is a 24 hour out of hours business, which is in the correct location.”

Minutes