Siting of temporary living accommodation for agricultural worker.

Refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The Development Manager (Enforcement) gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor SJ Robertson, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The site visit, undertaken the previous day, had proved extremely beneficial.

·         Sutton St Nicholas Parish Council had now expressed similar concerns to Pype and Lyde, and Holmer and Shelwick Parish Councils.

·         More weight was being given to Parish Councils as part of the Localism Act, their concerns should be taken seriously.

·         The Planning Inspector had upheld previous refusals of planning permission on the site.

·         The application was contrary to Policy H7 and H8 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

·         There was no need for the applicant to reside on the site.

·         There was concern in respect of the visibility splay proposed.

·         If the large shed on the site is being used for incubation purposes would a change of use be required?

The debate was opened with members voicing concern in respect of a number of aspects of the application. It was felt that the business case had not been sufficiently met and that the application could also be viewed as contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policy E11. Concern was also expressed in respect of the site location, the site access and the size of the proposed dwelling. Members also discussed certain areas of the site including the incubation shed and the man-made pools and requested clarification as to whether planning permission had been obtained, or was required, for these.

Other Members of the Committee however were in support of the application and noted that the site was well screened from the public highway. It was also felt that the need issue had been addressed at paragraph 6.5 of the Development Manager’s report. Members discussed the previous refused applications on the site and noted that the Planning Inspector had upheld the Council’s decision as the functional need tests had not been met, however it was felt that this issue had been addressed in the current application. Members also noted that the application was temporary and would give the applicant an opportunity to establish his business.

Further concern was expressed in respect of the access and egress to the site with full details of the visibility splay requirement requested from the Development Manager (Enforcement). Further clarification in respect of the requirements of PPS7 was also requested. Members also requested clarification in respect of the usage of the site and asked for confirmation that the usage was not deemed as commercial.

In response to a number of questions raised by the Committee, The Development Manager (Enforcement) provided the following information:

·         If the shed was to be used for intensive livestock purposes it could require the benefit of separate approval

·         The 400m rule was not an exclusion zone. Any development for the use of a building for livestock inside 400m of a protected building would require planning permission.

·         The use of the site was agricultural. Even if it was not deemed as agricultural the temporary accommodation policy was broad enough to cover it.

·         The previous application was refused and the appeal was upheld as no agricultural assessment had been submitted, this had been submitted for this application.

·         The assessment had been submitted by the applicant and not by the county land agent.

·         The temporary permission enabled the applicant to establish a successful business.

·         PPS7 required one out of the previous 3 years to be profitable.

·         Deliveries out of the site were approximately once every 8 days and utilized the applicants vehicle with a trailer.

·         Lorry deliveries into the site were less than once a month.

·         The transport manager found the access acceptable.

A number of Members were of the opinion that small rural businesses should be encouraged and supported however they felt that this had to be balanced with an acceptable application site. Further concern in respect of the access and egress was expressed.

The Committee also noted that the application sought a temporary planning permission for an agricultural worker, it was felt that approving the application would give the applicant an opportunity to establish a successful business. It was also noted that the Council was often quoted as having a ‘can do’ attitude and that this should be demonstrated through the support of small business.

In response to the points raised by the Committee, the Head of Neighbourhood Planning reminded them that the use of the site was not open to debate and that they were solely determining a temporary dwelling. He added that the agricultural usage of the site was likely to continue with or without the temporary dwelling.

In response to further questions from the Committee, the Development Manager (Enforcement) advised that:

·         the proposed dwelling had a ridge height of six metres, although the applicant was happy to reduce this if required,

·         the required visibility splay was 2.4 x 75 metres to the north and 2.4 x 100 metres to the south,

·         the required visibility splay could be achieved via appropriate hedge trimming.

Councillor SJ Robertson was given the opportunity to close the debate. She reiterated her opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         The title of the application referred to a farm worker and made no mention of his family.

·         The three neighbouring Parish Councils were all concerned in respect of the application.

A motion to approve the application in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation failed.

Members discussed the reasons that had been suggested for refusing the application and felt that any refusal should be based on Unitary Development Plan Policies H7 and E11.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised that Policy E11 was based solely on employment and as the application was not for the actual business and just for the dwelling it would not be appropriate. The Committee therefore based their reason for refusal solely on Policy H7 of the UDP as in their opinion the functional and financial need for the dwelling had not been sufficiently met.

Prior to the vote the Chairman had a brief discussion with the Head of Neighbourhood Planning in respect of any need for a further information report in accordance with the Council’s Constitution. He felt that a further information report would not be required. It was also noted that the Deputy Monitoring Officer had advised the Democratic Services Officer that he would not request a further information report so the Committee were able to proceed to the vote. The resolution as set out below was agreed.

RESOLVED

THAT planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.         It is not considered that sufficient justification has been provided to substantiate a full-time residential presence on the site and in the absence of a functional need, the proposal is contrary to Policies H7 and H8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and Annex A of PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.