For:     Mr D Mutlow per Mr C Goldsworthy, 85 St Owen Street, Hereford,
HR1 2JW

This application was considered by the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee at its meeting on the 20th December 2006 and the Sub Committee was mindful to grant  permission contrary to recommendation and the Councils Planning Policies.

Ward: Llangarron

The Development Control Manager said that at its meeting on 20th December, 2006 the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee was minded to grant permission contrary to recommendation for an agricultural dwelling with garden at Steppe House Farm, Pencraig.  The Head of Planning Services had referred it to the Planning Committee because of the issues involved.  These centred around the fact that the need for a permanent dwelling had not been shown and the proposal would conflict with adopted and emerging policies which sought to protect the countryside, particularly the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, from unnecessary residential development. 

The Development Control Manager said that a letter had been received from the agent acting for the applicants to say that they had to vacate the farmhouse at the behest of the developer so that he could incorporate it into the scheme of residential development of the existing farm buildings.  The Agent had claimed that there were compelling grounds for approval to be granted because the application met the tests set out in PPG 7.  The family had owned the farm for the past ninety-eight years but had encountered financial difficulties during the last five due to foot and mouth disease and had received no compensation.  Approval would enable a new house to be built and the debts to be cleared.  Notwithstanding this the Officers did not feel that the application met the functional and financial tests set out within the Councils policies.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Goldsworthy the agent acting on behalf of the applicants, spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Mrs JA Hyde the Local Ward Member said that the Sub-Committee had considered that permission should be granted because in their opinion the functional case for a dwelling had been made and the farm had been profitable for many years but had suffered in recent years.  This had created the situation where the applicant had been forced to sell the existing farmhouse and buildings.  She said that it was appropriate permission to enable the family to continue to live and farm on the land and she felt that the application could be seen as an exception to policy because of the particular circumstances involved.  Councillor GW Davis supported this view, feeling that because of the size of the farm and number of livestock involved it was essential for the family to have a dwelling on site because it would be difficult for them to manage it off site.  Councillor Mrs JE Pemberton said that the family had demonstrated their commitment to the farm and that it was only the particular circumstances which had forced them down this route.  She also felt that an exception could be made to policies.  Councillor WJS Thomas also felt that it was important to support the application otherwise there was a danger of a long established family farm being lost.  He also considered that the scheme had enabled much improved access and highway safety to the site. 

Councillor JW Hope had considerable reservations about the application, feeling that the need had been overplayed and could be measured by first having a mobile home for three or four years.  He felt that granting the application could set a dangerous precedent for other applications. The Chairman and Councillor DJ Fleet shared this view and felt that the applicants had exacerbated the problem by selling of all the buildings and that they could purchase a property elsewhere and use a mobile unit during key farming times.  The Development Control Manager said that the policies referred to in the recommended reasons for refusal were those dealing with new agricultural workers’ dwellings whereby national and local policies took a very restrictive stance. The fact that the applicants were selling the existing farmhouse could be indicative of a lack of agricultural need. The relevant UDP policy similarly implied that the normally restrictive open countryside policies should not be circumvented by selling existing farmhouses simply to create a farm with no on-site residential accommodation thereby requiring a new farmhouse. Both policies advised against such practice in order to prevent the creation of sporadic residential development in open countryside.  He drew attention to the view of the County Land Agent who had concluded that this largely arable farm holding did not justify a farmhouse and that a financial test had not been met by the application.  Irrespective of the past existence of a farmhouse on the property, the proposal to erect a new farmhouse did not meet the policy tests for new residential development in open countryside as set out in Planning Policy Statement 7 and the UDP.

Having considered all the facts regarding the application and notwithstanding the advice of the officers, the Committee did feel that there were sufficient grounds for the application being approved with appropriate conditions.

RESOLVED That

planning permission be granted subject to an agricultural occupancy condition and any other appropriate conditions considered to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services.