Proposed erection of poultry managers dwelling, together with garage/storage building and package treatment plant.

The application was approved contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed erection of poultry manager’s dwelling, together with garage/storage building and package treatment plant.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr D Thomas, the applicant spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor RJ Phillips, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        The farm was well established and seeking to diversify, requiring additional workers.  There were no objections to the application.

·        The proposal was consistent with paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  Poultry houses required a manager.  This was a skilled job and the employment market envisaged a certain salary and the provision of a house on site.

·        He referred to a communication from the Chairman of the Pembridge Neighbourhood Development Plan Group that the proposal was consistent with the draft plan.  He noted that the Parish Council supported the proposal.

·        He did not agree with the suggestion that an existing barn could be converted to provide a dwelling.  The barn was too large and the conversion of it would be correspondingly costly compared with the proposal in the application.

·        He questioned the consistency of decision making and advice from the agricultural consultant referring to two similar applications in recent years in his ward, at Shobdon and outside Kington, that, on the advice of a different consultant, had been approved by officers under delegated authority.

·        The report did not refer to the Defra codes of recommendations and guidance on animal welfare.

·        There was a functional need for a full time poultry manager on site.  The proposal was consistent with paragraph 79 of the NPPF and policies RA3 and RA4.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        The Parish Council supported the proposal as did the Pembridge NDP.

·        The development created no harm.

·        There was a need for a manager on site. The proposal was for dwelling on site specifically to accommodate a Poultry Manager. It was in proximity to the poultry houses.  The application was not for a new home in the open countryside.  

·        If was confirmed that if approved the dwelling would have an agricultural tie.

·        The Lead Development Manager commented that in assessing applications of this nature regard had to be had to the other dwellings in the farm’s ownership. A barn extension to the house, for which an application had been submitted the previous year, could have been constructed as an annexe to provide accommodation for the applicant’s mother, freeing up the dwelling 500m away that she currently occupied, or for a poultry manager.

·        Policy required there to be an essential need for a worker to live on site.  If it was concluded there was such a need, the question then turned on whether the need could be met within existing accommodation.

·        One difficulty in considering the application was that there had been a number of instances where applications had been made for agricultural ties to be lifted suggesting that the grounds for their need in the first place had not been as strong as indicated at the time.  The argument for the application and, others like it, was therefore finely balanced and required careful consideration.

·        The proposal was of good design and would not have an adverse impact, although it could be questioned whether it would have a positive one as required by policy RA4.

·        The reduction in travel both to enable rapid response to an emergency or in the interests of reducing travel as an objective in itself were in its favour.

The Lead Development Manager commented that a partial conversion of the barn in the farm complex could have been considered.  It was accepted that there was an essential need for a worker to live near or adjacent to the site.  However, there was accommodation already available to meet that need.  If the view was that a further dwelling was required policy RA4 4.8.33 provided that preference should be given to the use of suitable existing buildings through conversion. Permission for agricultural dwellings was granted as an exception to other policies in accordance with strict criteria.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that the partial conversion of the barn was not a practical option.  The functional need for the proposed dwelling had been demonstrated and would support the sustainability and diversification of a local family business.

Councillor Baker proposed and Councillor Edwards seconded a motion that the application be approved on the grounds that it complied with policies RA3, RA4, RA6, SS5 and E1 with an agricultural tie to the property. The motion was carried with 10 votes in favour, 3 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted on the grounds that the

application was supported by policies RA3, RA4, RA6, SS5 and E1 and officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers be authorised to detail the conditions, to include an agricultural tie to the property, and reasons put forward for approval.