For:      Mr. M. Powell per Mr. D. Cave, Sychar Cottage, The Downs, Bromyard, Herefordshire, HR7 4NU.

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

Ward: Golden Valley South

The Development Control Manager said that at its meeting on 15th August 2007 the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee was mindful to approve the application contrary to a number of planning policies.  The Sub-Committee had given weight to the nature of the farm and the family circumstances of the applicant who lived nine miles away and his parents lived in the existing farmhouse. They considered that the needs of the farm were sufficient to justify a second dwelling and that the existing barns on the site were not suitable for conversion. They also considered that, given the low level of traffic, the highways objection was not one that could be supported. They also noted that the applicant had the full support of the Parish Council.  The Sub-Committee favoured granting planning permission with an agricultural occupancy condition on the new dwelling, but not the existing farmhouse. 

The Development Control Manager presented the following updates:

The Traffic Manager has considered the recently submitted traffic survey figures and comments as follows:

The development would intensify the vehicle movements and I feel the information provided for vehicle movements along the U74205 does not change my recommendation, improvements to the visibility would need to be undertaken.

The information suggests concentration of vehicles between 8:00 and 9:00 am, this may well increase outside school holidays and could conflict with farm traffic especially during school runs.

It follows that the highway safety reason for refusal remains as part of the recommendation.

The County Land Agent has considered the updated agricultural appraisal and confirms that the figures can justify 2 full time workers rising to 2.15 depending on the future development of the farming practice.

The Officers were of the view that the total amount of labour needed to manage and maintain the farming enterprise was not disputed. However, there was an existing farmhouse on the site and the need for additional labour could therefore be satisfied without the construction of a  new dwelling.  The highways objection has not been resolved and both reasons for refusal remained relevant.  If, however, Members took the view that a second dwelling on the site is acceptable then consideration needs to be given three further issues:

1.                  the scope of existing structures on the site to be converted to residential use

2.                  the need to apply occupancy conditions to both the existing farmhouse and any new dwelling (to be consistent with the view that the holding justifies two dwellings)

3.                  any measures necessary to overcome the highways objection

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Herdman of Newton Parish Council and Mr Howie the applicant’s agent spoke in favour of the application.

The Committee discussed details of the application and had a great deal of sympathy for the circumstances facing the family and the practicalities of farming with the distances having to be travelled by the applicant and the father having difficulty with the physical work.  The practicalities of converting existing buildings were examined and it was noted that whereas there would be some drawbacks, this would be possible.  Councillor JB Williams the Local Ward Member felt that the layout of the farm was such that conversion would be costly, there would be a need to provide alternative barns for storage and the driveway would need to be re-routed to avoid any safety issues arising from agricultural vehicles.  He did not agree that a highway safety issue would arise in the approach roads to the farm where traffic was very light.  A proposal that permission should be granted was however lost and the application was subsequently refused by the casting vote of the Chairman.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.      Having regard to Policies H.7 and H.8 in the Unitary Development Plan 2007, the proposed dwelling is considered to be unacceptable.  The proposal constitutes development in open countryside, divorced from any settlement and there is considered to be insufficient justification such that an exception should be made to these policies.  This is also with regard to the need to utilise existing buildings in preference to new development.  In addition, the erection of a dwelling in this location would be contrary to the provisions of PPS.7 that seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake from unwarranted development.