Agenda item

Construction of 1 no. Farm Manager's house with landscaping and associated works.

Defer

Mr Young presented the report to the Committee. He showed the site layout and outlined the buildings already located on and the highlighted the nearest property; 2 Ivy Cottages which was where the applicant currently resided.

Mr Young drew the Committee’s attention to the proposed area of land for the new development. He confirmed the site was located outside the settlement boundary.

The proposal was for a one and half storey chalet style bungalow, with a link to garaging and office. Mr Young confirmed there would be new landscaping provided as part of the application, he showed the proposed elevations and floor layout. He explained officers were concerned the proposal and its design was out of keeping with the surrounding countryside. 

Mr Young informed the Committee the application was in open countryside and was not designated for development. He explained the applicant already lived on the main farm site had not put a satisfactory case forward for the essential need to live on site. Mr Young informed the Committee the farm was operational, but there were also a number of diversified businesses on site including wild camping and dog walking.

There was no objection from WSCC Highways and an electric vehicle charging point would be installed as part of the development.

Mr Young explained the recommendation was to refuse the application and drew the Committee’s attention to page 63, which set out the reasons for refusal.

The following representations were received;

Mr John Brown – Supporter

Mr Robert Brown – Supporter

Cllr Adrian Moss – CDC Ward Member

Cllr Penny Plant – CDC Ward Member

Officers responded to Member’s comment and questions as follows;

On the matter of Ivy Cottages; Mr Whitty confirmed the Historic Buildings Advisor had visited the site and advised that modifications could be sensitively made with planning application.

With regards to additional conditions; Mr Whitty informed the Committee that a personal condition (i.e., attached to the applicant) could not be included however, a condition to restrict the occupation of the house to an agricultural work could be attached.

In response to concerns regarding policy application; Mr Whitty clarified that officers had tested the application against policy criteria and in doing so found the application did not meet many of the required criteria. He advised that whilst policy was not made by the granting or refusing of applications, the interpretation of policy in making the decision did.

With regards to the ownership of other buildings on the land; the Chairman allowed the applicant to clarify the boundary of the blue line, they confirmed that neither Donnington Manor nor North End Cottage were in their ownership.

Mr Whitty confirmed there was no ‘tie’ on Ivy Cottage.

With regards to whether there was an alternative location on site; Mr Whitty advised the Committee this would have been considered as part of the application process.

With regards to negotiating on the size of the proposed development site; Mr Whitty reminded the Committee they were not there to negotiate; it was their responsibility to take a decision on the application presented to them.

Mr Whitty advised the Committee that if they chose to permit the application it would be cited as precedent on similar future applications. However, if the Committee felt that the complexities of the site necessitated the need for the applicant to reside on site and grant the application outside of Policy 37, the application could be advertised as a departure from Local Plan Policy for a period of three weeks, it would then be brought back to Committee for decision.

Cllr Bowden proposed the application be deferred for a site visit.

Cllr Brisbane seconded the proposal.

In a vote the Committee rejected the proposal.

In a vote the Committee refused to support the report recommendation.

Cllr Bowden proposed the application be deferred to allow officers the necessary time to readvertise as the application as a departure from Local Plan Policy, due to the complexities of the diversification and the need for someone to be on site at all times. During the deferment the Committee asks officers to further negotiate the extent of the curtilage of the dwelling with the applicant.

Cllr Sharp seconded the proposal.

In a vote the Committee voted in favour of the proposal to defer; for the reasons set out above.

Resolved; defer, for the reasons set out above.