Occupation of the new dwelling granted planning permission on 10 March 2011 (Ref: P2121/10/FUL) without complying with condition (07) (requiring agricultural occupancy of Yew Cottage and Hill View Cottage)

Occupation of the new dwelling granted planning permission on 10 March 2011 (Ref: P2121/10/FUL) without complying with condition (07) (requiring agricultural occupancy of Yew Cottage and Hill View Cottage)

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, referred to the late material and reminded members of the condition that had been imposed on the planning permission when considered as an agricultural workers dwelling in association to a poultry enterprise at the farm. 

Please refer to the late material circulated before the start of the meeting

Public speaking

The applicant informed members that the late material for this item did not include all of the information that had been submitted following publication of the agenda. (This information is available on the council’s website). The speaker then made the following statement: -

My husband and I are the applicants wishing to develop a new house without complying with the condition imposed on 2 other dwellings, the subject of this application and owned by my husband. These 2 dwellings have constantly been included by your officers in all the planning applications made in regard to the Free Range Egg Unit since 2007, even though they have never been part of the application site. In 2011, members decided to permit the application, but due to officers’ advice, were persuaded to impose the condition. Members were not informed then, that advice regarding the imposition of conditions is provided by Circular 11/95. This sets out that six tests need to be satisfied before imposing conditions; principally, that is it necessary and relevant to planning, and to the development, to be permitted and reasonable in all other respects. The minutes of the March 2011 meeting demonstrate that the reason for imposing was to “prevent the possible sale of any other properties at the site should they become available”. Having spent £800,000 on our Free Range Egg Unit, I trust members will agree this a considerable sum to risk. The imposition of the agricultural tied condition on 2 cottages which are not at the site has in our view reduced the value of these by at least £150,000, being a third of their original value. As they are currently occupied by retired workers from a separate farming business, the condition will in the future make it nearly impossible to rent them out, as persons able to satisfy the condition are not common, and, secondly, it is practically impossible to attain any form of borrowing on Agricultural Tied Buildings, so in practice, they are virtually impossible to sell. We are being severely financially penalised for wishing to provide our worker with a decent dwelling. Apart from the points made in our planning statement confirming the condition is not necessary nor reasonable - Section 36 of the Circular 11/95, sets out the avoidance of onerous requirements, and part of it states, “Any condition which would put a severe limitation on the freedom of owners to dispose of their property, or which would obviously make it difficult to finance the erection of the permitted building by borrowing on mortgage, should be avoided on these grounds”. Section 35 states in part – “A condition may be unreasonable because it is unduly restrictive and such a condition should not be imposed if the restriction effectively nullifies the benefit of the permission”. Members are respectfully asked to agree that this condition is onerous and unnecessary. Two cottages have had much of their value taken away, which seems very harsh and unreasonable to us when all we want is to provide a house for our loyal poultry worker.

Committee consideration

Councillor Norman Stephens recalled the extensive debate that had taken place at the committee meeting in March 2011, where planning permission had been granted for the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling, subject to a condition on two other properties in the ownership of the applicant. Councillor Stephens said he had a great deal of sympathy with the applicant and felt that the condition to impose an agricultural tie on two properties located away from the site had been wrong at the time of the permission and was wrong now. He said that the elderly retired farm workers living in the two properties had no connection with the new poultry unit and that it was ridiculous to impose such a condition. He also felt it would be detrimental to the business to impose a condition that devalued the two cottages and render it virtually impossible to sell either property in the future.

Councillor Gabriella Kirkpatrick said that, although a very emotive issue, it would be a mockery of planning policy to remove the condition.

Aware of the mixed responses to the application, Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams reminded members that the personal circumstances of the applicant were irrelevant and that members should only consider the application based on agricultural need. He also informed members that the applicants had chosen not to exercise their right of appeal against the condition imposing an agricultural tie to the two existing farm workers properties.

Vote (1)

Councillor Norman Stephens proposed that the condition be removed. He described the condition as onerous and said that the properties in question did not form part of the application for which planning permission had been granted in 2011. Councillor Julia Gooch seconded this proposal and said that she could not understand why such a condition had been imposed in the first place, especially when it was quite clear the properties in question had no connection to the poultry business. A recorded vote was taken but the proposal was unsuccessful. 

For (6)

Councillors Julia Gooch, Brian Jones, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Arthur Thomas and Roger Yeates.

Against (9)

Councillors James Bevan, Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Jackie Fraser, Terry Glastonbury, Val Hobman, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Lynn Sterry and David Thompson

Abstentions (0)

Vote (2)

Due to the failed vote, the committee then voted on the original recommendation. Councillor Terry Glastonbury moved the recommendation to refuse the application and Councillor Gabriella Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to refuse the application for the reasons included in the schedule of applications and based on the information referred to in the late material

For (9)

Councillors James Bevan, Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Jackie Fraser, Terry Glastonbury, Val Hobman, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Lynn Sterry and David Thompson

Against (4)

Councillors Julia Gooch, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens and Arthur Thomas.

Abstentions (2)

Councillors Brian Jones and Roger Yeates