Erection of dwelling for agricultural manager. 

(Erection of dwelling for agricultural manager.)

The Senior Planning Officer (SPO) gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

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

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        He stated that he lived about a mile from the site and his property was surrounded by the applicant’s land.  The property had at one time been the applicant’s farmhouse.  However, he had not purchased it from the applicant but from a subsequent owner.  He knew the applicant but not socially.

·        He could confirm from his local knowledge that the applicant cared for the farm.  It was sensible in the interests of animal welfare for a farmer to live on the farm.  Currently the applicant had lived on site for 12 years in a caravan.  The farm had been farmed by the family for 100 years.

·        There were several letters in support of the application with little opposition.

·        The dwelling would not be visible from the road and would only be visible to a very few properties.  It would not inconvenience anyone and the council should show flexibility.

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

·        There was a wish to support a family seeking to hand down a farm through thegenerations and there was some sympathy for the personal situation of the applicant.

·        There had been a bungalow on site with an agricultural tie.  The applicants had applied to have this removed and the property had subsequently been sold four years ago.  This action appeared contrary to the stated wish to enable the family to live on site and expand the business.

·        It was noted that the agricultural consultant had concluded that there was no essential need for the development of a further dwelling.  Some members disagreed asserting that someone needed to be on site to deal with animal welfare issues.

·        The SPO referred members to the committee update which contained revised information on the size of the landholding and numbers of livestock.  She confirmed that she had sought and received confirmation from the agricultural consultant that his opinion had been based on that information. There was one property on site with an agricultural tie and one property, the converted barn, with no tie that was occupied by the applicant’s parents.

·        The proposal was contrary to policies RA3, RA4, SD1 and LD1.

·        The Parish Council opposed the proposal.

·        The design was not of sufficient quality or suitable for the site.  It would be visually prominent from some aspects.  There had been no effort to screen the building.  A proposal for a modest and functional building would have been more appropriate.

The Lead Development Manager confirmed that the caravan on site was currently unauthorised.  The design of the proposal formed one of the recommended grounds for refusal.  The essential need was met by the existing properties.  An annex could be considered to accommodate a son. 

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that the bungalow that had been sold was some 1 1/2 miles from the farm buildings and had not therefore been in a suitable location.  He questioned whether an annex was a suitable form of accommodation in this case. He remained of the view that the application would not inconvenience anyone.

Councillor Edwards proposed and Councillor Guthrie seconded a motion that the application be refused in accordance with the printed recommendation.  The motion was carried on the Chairperson’s casting vote there having been with 5 votes in favour, 5 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         In light of the information provided with the application, it has not been demonstrated that there is an essential need for an additional dwelling at Hazelfield, noting that there is Hazelfield Barn and Hazelfield House in close proximity to the site that could be utilised. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies RA3 and RA4 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its scale, prominence and overall design approach, is not one that has been influenced by the local context of the site and would result in landscape harm. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SD1 and LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informative:

1.         The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations and identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the applicant.  However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which have been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

(The meeting adjourned between 3.00 pm to 3.07 pm.)