For:      Mr M Williams per Paul Smith Associates, 19 St Martins Street, Hereford, HR2 7RD.

Ward: Llangarron

To consider a revised planning application which has been referred to the Committee because the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee was mindful to approve contrary to policy and officer recommendations.

The Southern Team Leader said that the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee was minded to grant planning permission contrary to recommendation.  The Sub-Committee had given weight to the existence of the lawful development certificate for a caravan on the site, which could be replaced by another temporary structure such as a “log cabin” style caravan.  The suggestion made by the agent that the occupant of the caravan would be able to assist in the running of the farm and was a close family member of the occupant of the main farmhouse was also taken into account. The support of the Parish Council was also taken into consideration. It was, however, noted that the normal requirements of the functional and financial tests for a new farmworker’s dwelling had not been established in this case. He reported the following updates:

Letter from Paul Smith Associates, 19 St. Martins Street, Hereford:

On planning policy, I would remind you that in R v Rochale MBC ex p Milne (2001) 81 P & CR 27, Sullivan J. said:

“..I regard as untenable the proposition that if there is a breach of any one policy in a development plan a proposed development cannot be said to be “in accordance with the plan”….

For the purpose of Section 54A it is enough that the proposal accords with the development plan considered as a whole.  It does not have to accord with each policy and every policy therein.”

In light of this and UDP policy H11 that treats caravans on the same basis as dwellings I suggest that you should draw no distinction between the two in this application.

Furthermore, I believe that the proposal accords with UDP policy S1 (3), (4), (S5) and (13), policy S2 (1) and (2) to greater extent than the compelling my client’s to occupy the residential caravan or any replacement caravan, mobile home or log cabin which could be reinstalled with your Council’s express permission.  Without question, a bungalow would be far more energy-efficient and longer lasting than these alternative units of accommodation.

In light of this and that this proposal would not, in your officers opinion, cause any harm in site specific terms, I cannot identify any harm caused by this proposal.  I stand by my earlier comments that there is a contradiction within the UDP in that policy H11 treats caravans the same as dwellings yet policy H7 seems to oppose the replacement of one with the other.  Policy H11 carries no less weight than policy H7.

Lastly, my purpose of submitting the Cornwall appeal decision with the planning application was to demonstrate that my arguments carry considerable weight in very similar circumstances to those that exist with this application.

The view of the Southern Team Leader was that the agent had not interpreted policy correctly. The lawful development for the use of the land for one caravan was not the same as a permission for a permanent building. There was a fundamental difference in planning law between a material change of use for the stationing of the caravan on the land, and an operational development for the building of a house.  The latter as proposed was contrary to H7 in all respects. The agent/applicant had not put forward a case for an agricultural worker’s dwelling, no functional or financial case had been made, and the proposal was not put forward as affordable housing in accordance with policy H.10. The proposal met none of the criteria in policy H7 and, as a new dwelling in the rural area outside any recognised settlement, it was contrary to all the relevant criteria in the Development Plan..

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Smith, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Committee discussed the details of the application and noted the points that had been raised about it.  The Committee noted the policy issues at steak but were of the view that the dwelling would be for a member of the family who would be contributing to the operation of the farm and that an exception could therefore be made.  The Southern Team Leader said that this would cause a problem in the future when the family member no longer occupied the dwelling.  He pointed out that there was also the issue of the existing permission which existed for a caravan on the site.  Councillor RH Smith was of the view that this could be dealt with through a Section 106 Planning Obligation.  Councillors PGH Cutter and JB Williams felt that any new dwelling should be tied to the existing agricultural building through suitable conditions. 

RESOLVED

That the planning application be approved subject to the following conditions and any further conditions felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services:

(i)         extinguishment of the existing lawful development certificate.