Agenda item

88.  The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application: 23/02799/FUL which sought permission for the erection of a temporary dwelling for a rural worker.

89.  Simon Till introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

90.  The Chairman asked Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application, and Paul Goddard Responded as follows:

91.  Page 18, the access existing into the site would be improved with surfacing for the first five metres.

92.  Any increase in traffic generation would be offset by having accommodation overnight to look after the alpacas.

93.  Not expected to be much change in existing vehicle movements.

94.  Highways Officers supported the application.

95.  In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Conan MacDermott, applicant, and Councillor Tony Vickers, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant/Agent Representation

96.  Conan MacDermott in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The applicants had established their own business.

·         There were 24 breeding alpacas, with 12 pregnant.

·         Alpacas were induced ovulators with a very large birthing window, with stress causing miscarriages and issues within the first two to three months.

·         Living onsite would ease caring for the alpacas.

·         Caring for the alpacas required long days starting from 06:00 and often ending past 01:00 the next day.

·         Allowing the permission would support farming enterprises and diversification, and protection of a small rural business, which would be in line with Policy CS10 of the Council’s Core Strategy.

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

97.  Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Ward Member Representation

98.  Councillor Vickers in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Concerns regarding the viability of the business.

·         Receiving temporary permission as a startup had been common.

·         Satisfied that there were no alternative accommodations on site or suitably near to the alpaca site. 

·         Uncertain the number of alpacas would be sufficient to maintain the business going forward. However, they would likely breed, and there would be more alpacas, and there would be the land available within the ownership of the family.

·         The hard work put in by the applicant had been clear.

·         Councillor Vickers supported the application.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

99.  Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

100.      Members asked a number of questions, and Officers responded as follows:

·         The norm for a generic temporary accommodation would be three years. The figures given to the Council would not break even at three years, however weight had been given to the rural enterprise within the countryside. A definitive business case had been submitted, supported by agricultural consultants, which stated that at year four the business would start to show a profit. Therefore, the appropriate time for assessment would be after four years.

·         The enforcement matters were separate regarding the barn. The application initially posed challenges for officers considering it because of the accommodation within the barn. The unauthorised accommodation had been subject to an enforcement notice. The applicant promptly complied with the enforcement notice. Separate from the enforcement notice, there had been a six-metre extension to the barn which had not received planning permission. That was outside the purview of the application and officers would address that separately.

·         C5 Section 8, The site had been separated from Holt Farm within the past ten years. None of the dwellings on the farm would be available to the business.

·         Officers were satisfied with the market research exercise to support the application.

Debate

101.      Councillor Amirtharaj opened the debate by agreeing with Councillor Vickers points regarding the site visit, and the explanation of the officers regarding the accommodation.

102.      Councillor Woollaston praised the hard work shown by the applicants and supported the application.

103.      Councillor Benneyworth stated that the site had previously been troubled regarding planning applications. On balance, Councillor Benneyworth supported the application.

104.      Councillor Vickers stated that enforcement would be linked in with the planning system and how it would be viewed by the public. Other issues that had occurred in the parish and throughout the ward would be investigated. Councillor Vickers supported the application.

105.      Councillor Amitharaj proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Woollaston

106.      The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Amirtharaj, seconded by Councillor Woollaston to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions.