Erection of one bungalow for agricultural workers dwelling.

Ward: Bringsty

Site for the erection of one bungalow for agricultural workers dwelling. 

The following updates were reported:

·         Two letters of support had been submitted from CDM Scales, Blake House, Eastham, Tenbury Wells, and Michael Edwards and Sue Hirst, Lower Lincetter, Badley Wood Common. 

The former was one of the applicant’s customers, commenting that the applicant always supplies high quality produce and is extremely reliable.

The latter were near neighbours who welcomed the fact that the land is being brought back into economic use, and they supported the proposal.  They also noted that at the time of the hearing, it was determined that hydroponic production necessitated on-site 24 hour staffing. 

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

The Local Ward Member, Councillor TW Hunt, said that it had been helpful to defer the application in order to obtain more information about the business.  He queried whether all the necessary information had been submitted.  He drew comparisons with this application, and a similar one at Lower Eggleton, which had been refused and was now the subject of an appeal.  He felt that the application would allow a dwelling to be built in open countryside, and that the reasons for refusal stated at a previous meeting were still valid, in spite of the receipt of further information. 

The Principal Planning Officer reported that the planning application at Lower Eggleton, referred to by Councillor TW Hunt, had differed from this application in that there had been insufficient evidence to demonstrate the financial viability of the business at Lower Eggleton, whereas in respect of this application, the applicant had submitted detailed audited accounts. 

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that there was currently one polytunnel on the site, and that any further polytunnels would be the subject of a separate planning permission. 

In response to further questions, the Head of Planning Services said that although a dwelling would not normally be permissible in the proposed location, in this case it did accord with Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 because the application had satisfied the function and financial tests.  He also stated that it might be too restricting to amend the proposed Condition 5 so that it referred expressly to the applicant’s hydroponic business, because this condition (E28) was generally intended to offer a degree of flexibility. 

Having considered all the information surrounding the application, members agreed that planning permission should be granted because the application had satisfied the requirements of PPS7. 

RESOLVED:   That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1 -     A02 (Time limit for submission of reserved matters (outline permission))

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 -     A03 (Time limit for commencement (outline permission))

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3 -     A04 (Approval of reserved matters)

         Reason: To enable the local planning authority to exercise proper control over these aspects of the development.

4 -     A05 (Plans and particulars of reserved matters)

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

5 -     E28 (Agricultural occupancy)

         Reason:  It would be contrary to Development Plan policies to grant planning permission for a dwelling in this location except to meet the expressed case of agricultural need.

Informatives:

1 -     N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC

2 -     N19 - Avoidance of doubt