Agenda item

Application Proposal: The erection of an agricultural workers dwelling

The Area Lead Planning Officer presented his report to members. He advised that the application for the erection of an agricultural workers dwellings. Using a PowerPoint presentation, he provided images to show the location of the site and the proposed plans.

He also provided photographs to show the site and existing buildings on the site.

He advised that the size of the proposed dwelling was significantly larger than the policy recommended and included a study and office, which are already provided elsewhere onsite.

He explained that he was satisfied that the functional requirements of the farm had been met in line with policies. However, there were some concerns over the history of the farm and the size and specification of the proposed dwelling.

The Lead Specialist referred to comments on page 24 of the agenda where the Planning Officer had summarised his investigation over the history of the site to ensure that the system was not being abused. He agreed that the comments within the report had been written slightly emotively and agreed that this conclusion could have been worded more appropriately.

A member questioned a figure quoted on page 20 under point 4.2 as he felt that this was incorrect. The agent addressed committee and explained that the quoted 1,250 on page 20 should read 9,936.

The agent continued to advise members on the planning application. He explained that the dwelling at Temple Lane Farm had been sold to allow the applicants to keep Rodgrove Farm. He advised that it was sold as an agricultural workers dwelling.

He commented that the report refers to the spirit of policy HG9 and felt that the policy should be judged on what it actually says. Both himself and the applicants resent the comments in the report which suggest that the situation has been played or abused. He explained that the proposed dwelling is 17% above the guide size for agricultural workers dwellings if excluding all non-residential elements and asked why farmers should only be allowed modest homes in which to live in?

He explained that the labour requirement set out in the farming appraisal were equivalent to 4.5 workers and advised that there was only one modest home on the farm.  He informed members that the proposed dwelling was for a 4 bedroom home which would be constructed from natural stone and clay tiles which would be taken from former buildings on the site. He also pointed out the parish council have not objected to this application.

The applicant addressed the committee. She explained that she had farmed at the site for 35 years and explained that there had been a recent family dispute and ongoing legal battle, which resulted in the sale of Temple Lane Farm. She explained that she was disappointed to read the Planning Officers personal opinion within the report and felt that the facts were not clear for the committee members. She advised members that she received letters of support from a vet that confirmed that additional staff are required to live on site.

Councillor Nick Colbert, Ward Member, spoke in support of the application. He questioned why the dwelling had been considered as being too large. He also suggested that the planning department might like to write a letter of apology to the applicants in relation to the comments on page 24 of the agenda. He pointed out that family situations can change over the years. He proposed that the application should be approved, however the requirement for an electric car charging point should be excluded from the permission.

Councillor Colin Winder, Ward Member, spoke in support of the application. He pointed out that the Temple Lane Farm had been sold and should not be a consideration of this application. He suggested that the size of the dwelling should also not be a consideration and would like to see the recommended sizes for agricultural dwellings removed from policy.

Another member agreed that the recommended sizes for agricultural dwellings was frustrating, however pointed out that this was policy outside of the control of the planning team. He felt that the proposed charging points for electric cars should be considered.

The proposal to approve the application, without the need for an electric car charging point was seconded, subject to conditions to restrict the time limit for commencement, approval of materials, agricultural occupancy and approved plans.

On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 18/01067/FUL be approved, contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reason;

On the basis of the information provided in support of the application, the proposal satisfies the requirements of policy HG9 of the adopted local plan. It does not replace dwellings recently disposed of on the farm holding and the proposed dwelling is of a satisfactory size and specification to meet the operation needs of the business. As such, the proposal accords with policies SD1, SS1, HG9 and TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan and the aims and objectives of the NPPF.

Subject to the following conditions:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

            Reason:  To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1395/2, 1395/3, 1395/4, and 1395/5.

            Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

03.       The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly working, or last working, in the locality in agriculture or in forestry, or a widow or widower of such a person, and to any resident dependants.

            Reason: The LPA would not have been prepared to grant permission for a dwelling in this location except for the agricultural needs of the holding in accordance with policy HG9 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

04.       The external materials of the walls and roofs of development hereby approved will be reclaimed stone and tiles from the existing buildings on site unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

            Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

Informatives:

01.       Please be advised that approval of this application by South Somerset District Council will attract a liability payment under the Community Infrastructure Levy.  CIL is a mandatory financial charge on development and you will be notified of the amount of CIL being charged on this development in a CIL Liability Notice.

You are required to complete and return Form 1 Assumption of Liability as soon as possible and to avoid additional financial penalties it is important that you notify us of the date you plan to commence development before any work takes place.  Please complete and return Form 6 Commencement Notice.

You are advised to visit our website for further details https://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/cil  or email cil@southsomerset.gov.uk  

(voting: Unanimous)