Agenda item

The Planning Officer explained that four planning applications had been received covering one proposal.  Three applications were in relation to the agricultural buildings comprising the farmstead and the other was for the siting of a temporary agricultural workers dwelling. 

The Planning Officer gave a powerpoint presentation outlining the four applications and referred to the key considerations associated with each application which were landscape impact, functional/business need for a worker to reside on site, does the justification for the site outweigh the landscape harm and ecology.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was to refuse all four applications.

The Planning Officer advised that the applicant had offered the demolition of some of the existing buildings to be conditioned as an enhancement to the scheme.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer and Development Control Manager confirmed:-

·         The livestock to be kept would remain the same which was currently cattle and sheep;

·         The dwelling on the existing farmstead was occupied by someone not involved with agriculture;

·         The benefits of the proposal could include supporting a rural business;

·         The maximum height of the farm buildings would be 7 metres;

·         The floor levels could be conditioned if the application were to be approved;

·         A landscaping condition could be included if the application were to be approved;

·         If approved and the business did not prosper, the buildings would remain but the temporary agricultural dwelling would fail;

·         The height of the site above sea level is approximately 165 metres;

·         The owner of the existing buildings was the applicant.

The Committee was addressed by Lucy Corbett, representing Cudworth Parish Meeting.  She raised a number of concerns with the application which included the following:

·         Impact on the existing landscape;

·         Concerns of a permanent dwelling in time;

·         Impact of development would be irreversible;

·         It was unclear what use the existing buildings would have;

·         Remote and isolated location from the village;

·         Purpose of the two storey building remained unclear;

·         Support for the redevelopment of the existing site.

Carleton Earl, an objector and member of the Ramblers Association commented that the application would site a large building in the heart of a unique secret valley.  He referred to the newly created track being in regular use by large machinery and a potential danger for walkers.  He commented that the development would impact significantly on a number of footpaths in the area.  If the business failed the building would still be located in the area and spoil the environment.

The Committee was addressed by Mike Mouland and Kate Siebert in support of the application.  Comments made included the following: 

·         The site had been proposed because it was in the middle of the farm;

·          The buildings were required for security and animal welfare reasons;    

·         The field was very sheltered;

·         There were no water courses on the proposed site;

·         The existing buildings would not be able to accommodate more animals;

·         Ecology aspects of the farm would be preserved and improved;

·         The farm had a Woodland Management Plan approved by Natural England;

·         The landscape proposals mitigating against the farm buildings would boost the ecological success of the farm and promote further biodiversity.

The Applicant, Simon Saunders commented that the position proposed was the best site for a small modern farmstead.  The lower site was unsuitable for a number of reasons as it was much colder and extremely windy. It was also highly exposed, more visible and not as secure as the proposed site.  He was of the opinion that the proposed landscaping and ecological improvements went towards mitigating against the small groups of buildings.

Ward Member, Cllr. Sue Osborne commented that a lot of work had gone into the application and although she considered it to be a finely balanced application between landscape issues and the need of a business she would support the application but only with conditions such as ensuring the land and buildings are tied to the land, removal of permitted development rights, materials to be agreed, removal of existing buildings, the dwelling not to be sited without the construction of agricultural buildings/demolition of existing buildings.  She commented that the applicant had submitted amended plans in response to concerns to change the access and move the temporary dwelling forward and was prepared to remove the existing buildings as a mitigation against the new buildings.  She also felt that it needed to be borne in mind that although the proposed location was a very beautiful piece of land it was farmland and was there to be farmed.    She expressed support for a number of conditions including the tying of the building to the land, removal of permitted development rights, vehicle use to be restricted to agricultural only, tree planting, bat boxes, building materials and the removal of some of the existing farm buildings.

During discussion on the application, members speaking in support of the application were of the view that the site wasn’t that prominent especially if appropriate landscaping and planting conditions were attached.  They were of the view that the track would be most prominent and should be conditioned appropriately.

The Development Manager advised that the tying of the dwelling to the land could only be imposed at the time of permission being granted for a permanent dwelling. He also advised that it would not be appropriate to remove permitted development rights for agricultural development.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application subject to conditions, contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation, for the reasons outlined by the Development Control Manager including:

·         The development would not have an adverse effect on the existing landscape character

·         Supports a local business

·         In keeping with the area

·         Supports policy HG9

The final wording of the justification for the permission and conditions to be agreed by the Planning Officer in conjunction with the Chairman and Ward Member, conditions to include amongst others the removal of the existing buildings, site levels, landscaping and external lighting etc.

On being out to the vote the proposal was carried by 8 votes in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention.