Agenda item

Report No: DEV/FH/18/004

Planning Application - 1no dwelling

Planning Application – 1no dwelling

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel; the Panel considered the application in light of the Officer recommendation being in conflict with the views of the Parish Council.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Officers were recommending that the application be refused for the reason set out in Paragraph 32 of Report No DEV/FH/18/004.

The Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee that the applicant had submitted information to prove a need for an occupant to live on the site as well as financial details to show the business was viable.  This information had been reviewed by Kernon Countryside Consultants (KCC) who had been appointed by the Local Planning Authority.

KCC’s assessment of the financial details indicated that the business was financially stable, however, they also considered that the level of income was sufficient to maintain the applicant’s current residence or another nearby residence.

Hence, whilst Part C of Policy DM26 was met in terms of the business’ financial viability, the proposal did not fully meet the tests of DM26 as KCC considered that there were alternative residential properties in the locality available to the applicant.

Speaker:      Mr Chris Nunn (applicant) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Roger Dicker spoke as Ward Member (South) and explained that whilst he had sympathy for the applicant in respect of this application he felt there was a strong reason to support the Council’s own policy as outlined by the Case Officer. 

Accordingly he moved that the application be refused as per the Officer recommendation.  This was duly seconded by Councillor David Bowman.

Councillors Simon Cole and Brian Harvey asked specific questions with regard to the application which were responded to in detail by the Service Manager (Planning – Development).

In relation to Member comments with regard to the need for provision for agricultural workers/industry within the Council’s housing policy, the Service Manager suggested that Members could raise this directly with the relevant Portfolio Holder.

Upon putting the motion to the vote, and with 8 voting for, 3 against and with 1 abstention, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

1. Policy DM26 requires that proposals for essential workers dwellings, in this instance an agricultural worker, provide evidence that there is a functional need for a full time permanent worker on the site, that there is a financially viable business, and that there is no other alternative dwellings available elsewhere in the locality. The application has failed to demonstrate that there is a functional need sufficient for the site to be occupied by a full time permanent worker, and while it is accepted that the business is financially viable, there is accommodation in the surrounding area that would appear to be available, at a distance reasonably commensurate with the existing arrangement, and within a suitable price range. The proposal therefore fails to accord with policies DM5, DM26 and paragraph 55 of the NPPF in respect of the requirement to demonstrate sufficient need for the dwelling.