Agenda item

Application Proposal:to remove condition 02 (agricultural workers occupancy) from planning permission 04/02261/FUL

The Development Manager introduced the report and advised that an application for an agricultural workers dwelling at the site had been approved in 2004 with a Section 106 condition that the property only be occupied by people in agricultural or horticultural occupation, or, their last occupation was agricultural or horticultural business.  The application had only been approved with the condition as it was a new building in open countryside.  He said that no open marketing exercise had been carried out and no supporting evidence had been submitted with the application.

In response to questions from Members, the Development Manager confirmed that:-

·         the applicant had not carried out any marketing exercise as they said that they did not wish to sell the property.

·         Planning Policy HG10 was a robust policy to justify the need for a new dwelling in open countryside.

Mr A Booth, agent for the applicant, clarified that the applicants only owned the 7.3 acres of land alongside the property and the field edged in blue in the presentation slides had been sold in 2015.  He confirmed that the valuation of £600,000 listed in the report was taken before the sale of the adjacent land.  Because of the unusually large size of the house and small acreage of land with no permanent outbuildings, it would not be attractive to a farmer.  He said that policy HG10 was not relevant in this instance and the well-being of the applicants should be considered as they did not wish to sell the property. 

The Development Manager clarified that the application plans had been submitted with the blue line around the adjacent field, indicating ownership and they had not been advised that it had been sold.  He also noted that the valuation of the land and property would increase by a third if the agricultural condition was lifted. 

The Ward Member, Councillor Paul Maxwell, advised that this was a small specialised nursery which could no longer compete with its larger competitors.  The large house and small acreage made it uneconomic for an agricultural living.  He confirmed that the applicants did not wish to sell the property but their health was such that they would not be able to operate the nursery business for much longer.  He concluded that the agricultural tie was no longer appropriate and should be lifted.

During discussion, varying views were expressed.  Some members felt that every application should be considered on its individual merits whilst others felt that the 18 month marketing exercise should be carried out before any consideration be given to lifting the agricultural tie, as the applicants currently complied with the condition. 

Councillor Paul Maxwell proposed that the agricultural tie to the property be lifted, contrary to the officer’s recommendation and an early review of Policy HG10 be made. This was seconded, however, on being put to the note, it was lost (voting: 3 in favour, 6 against 0 abstentions).  It was then proposed to refuse the application as per the officer’s recommendation and on being put to the vote the proposal was carried by 6 votes in favour, 3 against and 0 abstentions.

At the conclusion of the debate, the Area West Committee requested that an early review of planning policy HG10 be made to the planning policy team.

01.       The application lacks evidence that the property has been appropriately marketed and that there is no longer a need for the continued use of the occupancy condition, no. 02 on planning permission 04/02261/FUL, contrary to Policy HG10 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028, and the NPPF.

Informatives:

01.       In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as local planning authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions.  The council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;

·                     offering a pre-application advice service, and

·                     as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions.

(Voting: 6 in favour, 3 against, 0 abstentions)