Agenda item

Proposal: Section S73A application to remove condition 7 (agricultural occupancy) of planning approval application 820342.

The Planning Officer presented the application and explained the situation regarding the agricultural tie and the applicant’s application to transfer the tie to the listed farmhouse. He also noted that Environmental Health had raised a concern about the close proximity of the bungalow to the working farm.

Ms H Lazenby, agent, explained that the proposal was to transfer the tie to the farmhouse, however the officer opinion was that it was inappropriate to tie to a listed building. She felt some comments were unreasonable. The distance of the bungalow to the working farm yard was acceptable, and she noted there was another third party property closer to the farm with no complaints

Ward member, Councillor Dean Ruddle noted he was aware of the family circumstances and the mother who had occupied the dwelling was no longer in residence at the farm. He didn’t feel it was necessary to tie the bungalow to the farmhouse, and saw no reason why the agricultural tie shouldn’t be lifted. He supported the application but without a tie to the farmhouse.

Ward member, Councillor Stephen Page, took a different view and felt the property would be affected by the agricultural business. The current occupiers of the farm had indicated they no longer needed an agricultural workers dwelling, but queried what would happen in the future. He wanted to see continued use as a viable farming business.

During discussion varying opposing views were expressed and opposing proposals were put forward, but most members agreed the property should not be tied to the listed farmhouse. Some of the comments included:

·         If approved, what would happen in the future if an application came back in for an agricultural workers dwelling?

·         Many agricultural worker dwellings have been outgrown. The building needs to be used as a home.

·         Applicant has not supplied an appraisal to show that the need for an agricultural workers dwelling no longer exists, nor have they demonstrated that there is no need locally.

The first proposal was to approve the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, on the grounds that the need for agricultural occupancy has lapsed and local knowledge indicated there was no longer a need for the tie. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried 7 in favour, 4 against with no abstentions.

(Voting: 7 in favour, 4 against)