Erection of an agriculturally tied bungalow and a temporary 18 month retention of the mobile home during construction of the bungalow

Erection of an agriculturally tied bungalow and a temporary 18 month retention of the mobile home during construction of the bungalow

The Development Control Manager informed members that this application was for an agricultural workers dwelling and retention of a mobile home for 18 months. Outlining some of the key issues to consider, he said that national and local planning policies controlled new dwellings in the open countryside and only permitted such properties where there was an identified need. He said that a number of issues had been raised following assessment of the scheme, including issues relating to a mobile home that had been given permission for a temporary period, (which had now lapsed), to establish whether a farming enterprise sufficient to support a farm worker could be established. The farm enterprise was developing in a different way to that envisaged when the permission for a mobile home had originally been granted and the applicant was now proposing to invest in different farming practices. The Development Control Manager said that, even if such practices were introduced, the Councils Independent Assessor had advised that the enterprise did not demonstrate a need for a worker to live on the site. Furthermore, owned land on the farm was only 14 acres of land and, from a financial perspective, the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the enterprise could support a farm worker.

Public speaking

The applicant raised the following points in response to the report from the Land Agent from Gloucestershire County Council: -

Functional Need – 3 (i)

There is a an existing need – Oakleigh Farm has been functioning since at least 1995. We have invested approximately £120,000 in barns and an egg-packing shed. Questioning the land agents’ concern about being reliant on rented acreage, the speaker said that they had a contingency plan in that they had just invested another £12,000 on a new barn, based on the idea that if ever the applicant found themselves without rented land, (which was highly unlikely), they would have to consider getting rid of the suckler herd and would now have sufficient barn space (TB quarantine unit included, which was now up and running), to derive sufficient income from rearing calves. We have at least 2 dairy farms from which we can source calves from TB restricted herds (at a much reduced cost). These calves are sometime 3 – 4 weeks old and require twice daily milk feeding. If the applicant didn’t feed them, they would be probably shot by the farmer as surplus to requirements. I have secured 3 more regular retail customers fro free range eggs, which will require more hens and another shed. I deliver these eggs to the outlets, which are all within a 6 mile radius of the farm. I do sell some eggs at the farm gate, but the traffic movements generated by this is far outweighed by that generated by the courier vans passing by to the commercial enterprise further up the lane.

Full time labour – 3 (ii)

This was not recalculated as it is the same as before, the only difference being that I am no longer working as a health professional, so I am virtually full time on the farm – 7 days a week.

The land agent is still insistent that the annual profit should be sufficient to employ a minimum wage worker to put in the agriculturally tied dwelling but at the same time, admits that is not part of the PPS7 criteria. I find this very difficult to understand. Both my partner and I work the farm and make healthy living from the income, having no mortgage or bank overdraft.

The only year we didn’t make a profit, we were closed up with TB. Since these restrictions were lifted on 17 February 2011, we have sold £52,000 worth of cattle, whilst maintaining our stocking level at around 125 to 130 head. This enables us to sell a bunch of store cattle about every 3 to 4 months.

3 (iv)

If we have to cease occupancy of Oakleigh, whereas we have sufficient saved funds to build a small bungalow, we wouldn’t have enough to go out an buy one. We are not town dwellers and anything that was on the market within the sensible travelling distance of the farm, would be way outside our price range. The planned dwelling also has renewable electricity and ground source heating factored in, so our carbon footprint would be negligible.

Committee consideration

The majority of members spoke in support of the application. Councillor Norman Stephens challenged aspects of the Gloucestershire County Council Land Agents’ report and said that without planning permission, the applicant would not be able to operate his business successfully. Commending the applicants’ dedication and commitment, Councillor Stephens said that the proposed bungalow was a modest dwelling and that with the reassurance of an agricultural tie, would be quite acceptable. Several other members agreed with this perspective.

Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, said that there was no question about the applicants’ commitment to the business and of their good intentions. The issue remained, however, that having sought the professional advice of the Land Agent from Gloucestershire County Council, there was no evidence to support an essential need for an agricultural worker to live at the site. The Group Manager said that to grant planning permission without an appropriate justification could lead to the risk of an appeal against the imposition of any agricultural occupancy condition. 

Vote

Councillor Roger Yeates proposed that the application be granted planning permission, subject to a condition for an agricultural tie. Councillor Gethyn Davies seconded this proposal. The reasons suggested for approving the application included; the need for an agricultural worker to live at the site; to limit the number of vehicle journeys to the site; to assist with the rearing of young livestock and to provide security. Suggested conditions included; an agricultural tie and removal of the mobile home at the site on completion of the bungalow. A recorded vote was taken and members, 

RESOLVED to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions suggested at the meeting.

For (14)

Councillors James Bevan, Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Jackie Fraser, Terry Glastonbury, Julia Gooch, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thompson and Roger Yeates. (Councillor Val Hobman was not present at the meeting for consideration of this item).

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)