PROPOSAL: Erection of an agricultural worker’s dwelling.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION:  Refuse

22.9          This application was for the erection of an agricultural worker’s dwelling.

22.10        The Planning Officer explained that the proposal was for the erection of a detached dwelling to provide accommodation for an agricultural worker and their family.  The site currently contained an agriculturally-tied dwelling which was lived in by the applicant and his wife; however, the applicant intended to retire, handing control of the business over to his son.  The site was situated approximately two miles west of Winchcombe and just to the north of Cleeve Hill.  The current farmstead comprised several utility buildings including a grain store, an adjoining Dutch barn and a mono-pitch barn occupying 208 acres, 100 acres of which was owned with the remaining 108 acres being rented.  The site was within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The location of the proposed agricultural worker’s dwelling was on currently undeveloped agricultural land within the holding of Dryfield Farm to the south west of the existing farmhouse and adjacent to a cluster of agricultural and residential buildings.  The proposed dwelling would be a two storey detached house with an integral office and garage and would benefit from off-road parking for three cars, residential garden space and an additional detached garage building.  As summarised in the Officer report, the proposal would not comply with the Council’s housing policies as it was considered there was no functional need for the worker to be located at Dryfield Farm on a full-time, year-round basis; however, as the Council could not demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, the development plan policies were considered to be out of date in relation to Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  In this situation, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole.  Notwithstanding this, as set out in the Officer report, it was considered there would be significant and demonstrable environmental harms arising from both landscape impact and harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and the poor quality of the proposed dwelling, in conflict with the development plan and the Winchcombe and Sudeley Neighbourhood Development Plan.  For this reason, applying the National Planning Policy Framework policies for conserving and enhancing protected landscapes, there was a clear reason for refusing the proposed development; consequently, this meant the tilted balance was not engaged and the ordinary planning balance was applicable in this case.  Overall, it was concluded that the significant and demonstrable harms identified within the Officer report outweighed the very limited benefits that would accrue from the proposal; therefore, it was recommended that planning permission be refused.  The report mentioned that no comments had been received from the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer in respect of drainage – whilst that was still the case, it was thought that a drainage scheme could be provided on site which could be dealt with via an appropriately worded condition, should Members be minded to permit the application.  The Planning Officer proceeded to show a video of the application site serving as a virtual site visit for the Committee.

22.11        The Chair indicated there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted on the basis there were very special circumstance which would outweigh the harm arising from the development.  The proposer of the motion felt there were very special circumstances in terms of the applicant’s own personal situation which needed to be taken into account and this proposal would ensure the farm business, which had been in operation for 35 years, would be able to continue.  He pointed out that there were already seven residential properties on the site and, although the Officer report suggested that the proposed dwelling was too large he felt it was better to build something that would suit the needs of the occupant from the outset rather than grant planning permission for a smaller building which later needed to be extended.  In his view, it was completely necessary for agricultural workers to live on site given the nature of the farming business, therefore he felt the application should be permitted.  The seconder of the motion raised concern about the differences between the two agricultural reports – one submitted by the applicant and another commissioned by the Council.  There were several Members of the Planning Committee with knowledge of farming, himself included, and in his view, the report commissioned by the Council did not stack up in relation to the breeding of pheasants and the amount of time that needed to be spent with them on site – the hours identified within the applicant’s agricultural report also seemed to be quite conservative.  He agreed there were very special circumstances in this case which warranted planning permission being granted and considered that the need for an agricultural worker’s dwelling on site was paramount in securing the future of the farm if the applicant was to pass on the business to his son who currently lived approximately two miles away.  There was nothing closer to the farm to buy or rent so he could see the need for a large, modern house on the site.  He hoped that Members had been able to read the report from the applicant’s agricultural consultants whom he rated highly.

22.12         During the debate which ensued, a Member indicated that Policy AGR3 of the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan supported rural dwellings where they could be robustly justified and she felt there was an essential and functional need for this particular dwelling, as evidenced within the Officer report.  Whilst she recognised the site was located within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and that it was necessary to minimise the impact in relation to the countryside, there was no other suitable alternative accommodation in the area, and the dwelling would be restricted for use by employees of the farm, as such, in her opinion the benefits of the proposal outweighed the landscape harm and she would be happy to support the motion to permit the application.  Another Member totally agreed with this view and considered it was important for someone to live on site, not only for the welfare of the livestock but also in terms of security.  There had previously been a Rural Crime Officer for the area but he was unsure if this post still existed and whether they had been consulted on this particular proposal.  A Member was pleased that the applicant’s agricultural report had been circulated to the Committee as an additional paper as she had been disappointed with the assessment of the scheme in the Officer’s report.  She welcomed the continuation of a family business and felt the proposal should be supported.  Another Member shared these views and found it ridiculous to suggest there was no functional need for the dwelling – he had reared sheep for many years and was well aware of the amount of time that needed to be dedicated to the many associated tasks.  There must also be a duty of care to the horses at the livery when the owners were not available.  He did not think it reasonable for the applicant’s son to have to travel to and from the farm and pointed out that allowing him to live on site would reduce vehicle use.  He agreed with the comments regarding the agricultural reports and indicated that the Council’s report seemed to be very out of date.  Another Member advised that he had just retired from farming and he agreed with the comments that had been made by others regarding the amount of work involved.  He understood that there was a Rural Crime Officer in post but they were not particularly active in the area.

22.13         A Member empathised with the views expressed but was concerned about the impact of the proposal on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and indicated that he would have expected references to specific planning policies which supported a refusal.  Another Member questioned whether an agricultural tie could be imposed for a minimum period of time and the Planning Officer explained that a time would not generally be included within an agricultural tie condition as this allowed for the running of the farm to be taken over by others if necessary, as was the case in this instance. 

22.14         The Chair felt that the debate in respect of this application had shown the benefit of a Committee determination as it was clear the majority of Members were supportive of the proposal despite the Officer recommendation.  His concern was that the Officers had considered the proposal from the perspective of a refusal, therefore, the design proposed was not the best that could be achieved and would be unsuitable within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  On that basis, he wondered if a deferral might be a better option.  A Member suggested that a delegated permission would provide an opportunity to refine the design and the Legal Adviser confirmed that would be an option under these circumstances.  The proposer of the motion to permit the application indicated that he would not be happy with a deferral but would be willing to amend his proposal to a delegated permit for Officers to negotiate an improved design and to secure appropriate planning conditions.  The seconder of the motion to permit the application confirmed he would also be willing to support this; however, he would not like to see the application delayed further.  A Member indicated that he would prefer a deferral and could not support a delegated permit due to the adverse impact of the proposal on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Another Member expressed the view that design was subjective and he felt it was perfectly acceptable as it was – it may be that the current scheme was the best that could be achieved on the site as had been the case with an application he could recall in Uplands, Dog Lane - as such, he would like to see the application permitted without any delegated authority to negotiate the design.

22.15         Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Technical Planning Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to further negotiations to improve the design of the building and to secure appropriate planning conditions.