For:      Mr & Mrs Hill per Burton & Co, Lydiatt Place, Brimfield, Ludlow, Shropshire, SY8 4NP

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

Ward: Hampton Court

The Development Control Manager reported the following update:

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION

There has been an exchange of correspondence between the Agent for the application and the Development Control Manager which re-states their respective views as set out in the report.

The Inspector’s decision on the previous appeal on the site is attached for Members’ information.

OFFICER COMMENTS

The relevance of the policies remains as set out in the report.

The Development Control Manager advised that the Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee at its meeting on the 29th May 2007 was mindful to approve the application contrary to recommendation.  The Sub-Committee had given weight to benefits to the rural economy of the business. The applicant repaired agricultural machinery and frequently did so at short notice and at unsociable hours, thereby benefiting local agriculture.  The Sub-Committee felt that this justified approval under policy H8 of the Herefordshire Unitary development Plan (UDP) on the basis that it was in connection with a rural business. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Hanson of Docklow & Hampton Wafer Parish Council and Mr Hill the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. 

Councillor KG Grumbley the Local Ward Member said that the applicant ran a twenty-four hour breakdown service to deal with the problems which were encountered by the local agricultural community with their farming equipment.  He needed to be on site in order to respond quickly to emergencies and at present he had to travel from Pembridge to his workshop to collect tools and replacement parts, and then onto a client.  This often involved a round-trip of over forty miles and during times of heavy demand such as harvesting, this was proving to be increasingly difficult.  The applicant also had stated that he needed a permanent presence on site to receive parts deliveries, security for the storage of those parts and to have an on-site office which was currently lacking.  Councillor Grumbley felt that there was flexibility within Policy H8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (UDP) to help with assisting small but essential agricultural businesses such as this one.  He also felt that the point had been reached where there was a danger of loosing the business if permission was refused and that this would be to the considerable detriment of the agricultural community.  Granting the application would enable the applicant to achieve greater security and allow modest growth of the business.

The Development Control Manager advised that Policy H8 was intended to cover circumstances such as livestock farming where there was a clear need for day-to-day supervision and care of the animals. It was not intended to cover situations such as this whereby a business was located in the countryside but had no connection with the land. Essentially, the principal benefits of a house on the site would be to reduce the commuting distance from the applicant’s current home and provide him with greater security.

Having considered all the facts regarding the application, the Committee felt that there was sufficient flexibility to grant the application for what they considered to be an essential rural business.

RESOLVED

that the application be approved subject to any appropriate conditions felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services and subject to the building being tied to the business.