Proposed erection of an agricultural workers' dwelling (part retrospective).

The application was approved contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation, subject to a S106 agreement and conditions.

(Proposed erection of an agricultural workers' dwelling (part retrospective).

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application, which had been withdrawn from the agenda at the previous meeting, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.  He added with reference to paragraph 5.1 of the report that it had been confirmed that Leominster Town Council had had no objection to the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr R Pendleton of Leominster Town Council spoke in support of the application.  Mr J Hanson, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor PP Marsh, spoke on the application.

She made the following principal comments:

·        The Council had by its actions demonstrated the importance of adhering to planning policies.  The matter had been ongoing for some time and had been stressful for the applicant.  It was not a situation anyone would willingly choose to be in.

·        Sustainability underpinned the Core Strategy.  Parkgate consisted of 3 cottages.  It was not in open countryside it was in farmland.  The cottages had been constructed to provide accommodation for farm workers.  Two other small houses were immediately close by.

·        The location was sustainable.  The Council had placed tenants in the nearby houses for many years.  A regular bus service to Leominster ran past the house.

·        Only one dwelling currently had an agricultural tie.  Approving the application for a further tied dwelling would contribute to the economic viability of the farm. 

·        The house had been constructed on the footprint of the former dwelling and to the same height.  The frontage was the same and stones and tiles of the former building had been reused, providing an attractive result, matching the cottage next door.

·        Leominster Neighbourhood Development Plan, approved since the appeal, could be afforded moderate weight.  Policy LANP 5 permitted new housing development in the open countryside where it replaced an existing dwelling on the same site and was of a similar size and scale to the dwelling to be replaced.

·        The applicants had fostered many children and contributed to the community.

·        Having restored two cottages it was perhaps unsurprising that the applicant had not realised that the dwelling the subject of the application needed to be treated differently. Ideally advice would have been sought. However, they had not been well served by advice they had received from the council.

·        Neighbours supported the application which restored what had been a dangerous structure to an attractive affordable house, enhancing its setting, located between two other homes.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        A retrospective application was regrettable, but it was a confused situation involving several misunderstandings and did not appear to be an opportunistic application.  The applicants had had mixed advice some of which was a matter of dispute.

·        The proposal was sustainable development.

·        A building had previously been on the site.

·        The application had the support of the Town Council the local ward member and neighbours.

·        The dwelling needed to be tied to the holding due to the labour intensive nature of the holding.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the Committee needed to consider the matter as an application for a new agricultural dwelling as though no building had taken place.

In response to questions he suggested that an agricultural tie would be best achieved through a condition and S106 agreement to tie the dwelling to the holding.  A tie could apply to someone currently employed in agriculture or whose last employment had been in agriculture.

He added that in accordance with S38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 applications had to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. The application had been supported by limited information.  No agricultural appraisal had been submitted.  The building on the site was unauthorised and did not form part of the consideration.  The Committee was required to consider the application as though it were for a new agricultural dwelling on the site.

In response to discussion of the application of policies that would support the application he commented that policies RA3, RA4 and LANP 5 (i) would be relevant.

Councillor Greenow proposed and Councillor James seconded a motion that the application be approved subject to a Section 106 agreement and conditions tying the property to the farm as an agricultural dwelling which members considered was in accordance with policies RA3, RA4 and LANP5 (i) The motion was carried with 10 votes in favour, none against and 1 abstention.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated her support for the scheme.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 agreement and conditions tying the property to the farm as an agricultural dwelling and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation be authorised to detail the conditions.