Agenda item

Proposal: Proposed erection of an agriculturally tied dwelling.

The Planning Officer presented the application as shown in the agenda report which was for a fairly large four bedroom dwelling. He explained that the main reason for the recommendation of refusal was because it was felt there was not currently adequate justification for such a dwelling. Whilst it was acknowledged there might be need for someone to be living on site it was considered this should be a temporary permission at this time.

Mr R Cox, spoke in support of the application, and noted that the report stated no planning history, but about 24 years ago they had applied for permission for the buildings currently on the site. The applicant, his father, continued to farm but using contractors. He was disappointed at the comments of the Landscape Architect and felt they were flawed as the site was not in open countryside in the true sense of the word. Comments about the temporary permission were acknowledged but he also noted that the applicant in theory could convert one of the barns.

Mr Della Valle, agent, noted this was not a new start up business, and the applicant had farmed the holding for 42 years and lived remote from the site. The applicant now wished to run the farm with an employee living on site for security, as the site had been subject to multiple incidents of theft, vandalism and fire over the years despite a serviced alarm system. He considered in this instance that temporary permission was not appropriate and there was justification for a dwelling. The proposal had full support of the local community.

Ward Member, Councillor Shane Pledger, commented he had known of the farming family for many years. He was fully supportive of the application, and felt it was the right place for a building for continuation of this family business.

During discussion varying views were raised members including:

·         Is the requirement for temporary permission normal practice?

·         Anyone who farms should be supported but it’s a substantial dwelling.

·         Clearly an established farmer and business.

·         No issue with design but concern about principle based on evidence in agenda report.

·         It has the support of the parish council and is an opportunity for a young farmer to be employed.

·         Needs security on the site as open to theft and vandalism

·         Farmers need support

·         Large building for an agricultural workers dwelling with little justification

·         Security issue would be addressed in the short term by a temporary permission

·         Its not the current business to be considered but the future.

·         Applicant clearly confident business will work

The Area Lead explained in more detail the procedure regarding permissions for agricultural worker dwellings and the normal practice to approve temporary permissions first to allow a period of time to prove that the business is viable and a permanent dwelling justified. He also clarified that:

·         Local knowledge about the family business was a material consideration.

·         There was no issue with the location only the principle of evidencing the need.

·         Subject to normal tests, someone could apply to remove an agricultural tie, but would need to be evidenced as to why.

·         Agricultural ties were not really used any more, instead occupancy conditions were relied upon.

·         Scale of the proposal was not really an issue and considered to be in scale for a farm manager’s dwelling.

At the end of discussion it was proposed to refuse the application as per the officer recommendation, and on being put to the vote was carried 7 in favour (of refusing the application), and 6 against.

(Voting: 7 for, 6 against)