Agenda item

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 25/00234/FUL in respect of erection of an agricultural barn and access track on Land South of The Rancher, Manor Farm, Tidmarsh.

2.    Michael Butler 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.

3.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Edward Mather, agent, and Councillor Matthew Shakespeare, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Agent Representation

4.    Mr Mather addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Agent

5.    Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       It was proposed to have a small free-range operation of approximately 6 pigs.

·       The central part of the barn was essentially a void where larger machinery such as tractors would be stored, with a lowered ceiling for fertiliser and stores on either side of the central taller space.

·       There would be no change to the agricultural activity on the site, with hay and other smallholding operations taking place. The new facility would enable the applicant to store the relevant equipment onsite.

·       The agricultural report set out clearly the precise machinery required for the hay operations and calculated how much space would be required in the hay store. The hay store had been thoroughly rationalised based on previous use and the intended future use.

·       Local equestrian owners nearby would purchase the hay - it would not be a retail organisation.

Ward Member Representation

6.    Councillor Shakespeare addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording:

Eastern Area Planning Committee – Recording

Member Questions to the Ward Member

7.    Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       The Ward Member believed that ownership of the property had changed in the previous three to four years.

·       Officers advised that not withstanding the comments made by the ward member, the Committee must be careful to look at the merits of the application, and not the  personal merits of the applicant. If the permission was to be granted, the applicant would be within his rights to sell the property at any point. The enforcement history can be in some circumstances a material planning consideration. However, on this application, the land use merits of the application had been considered by officers and the application was recommended for approval. Members could refuse the application but must not do so on the personal demerits or merits of the applicant, as this would  leave the committee open to criticism. 

Member Questions to Officers

8.    Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       Regarding the raising of pigs and the need for 24 to 48 hour care required by the 2006 Animal Welfare Act, the occupation and use of a building for residential purposes was different to the use of a building for a temporary period for activities ancillary to the business on the site. It would be down to the reasons for the occupation being suitable to be ancillary to the activities on site. Occupation of a residential dwelling would be 24/7 with activities of a residential nature taking place throughout the year. There was a well-established set of tests within planning law in terms of how a person would go about evidencing a change of use in that manner. That level of ancillary residential use which would be associated with the business would not be something that would concern the LPA. 

·       Officers felt that in all likelihood the nature of sale of hay would not be a traditional retail operation, it would be an ancillary factor of baling hay on site and would be a typical activity for a farm in operation on a site such as this. Given the detail provided in the agricultural consultant’s report and that historically baling hay had been a primary use of this site over recent years, officers were content that it would not be a retail use, but would be an ancillary agricultural use.

Debate

9.    Councillor Jeremy Cottam opened the debate by noting that the applicant would be likely to buy piglets and raise them rather than breeding them on site. He questioned the economic viability of the proposal, particularly the proposed reduction in the number of tractors from three to one

10. Officers stated that Members should consider whether the details that they have been presented with indicate that the building would be necessary to assist with the viable operation of a farm business. Members should not take account of the business practices that may or may not be employed by the applicant. The applicant’s decision to buy, rent, or borrow a tractor was not a material planning consideration. It was only whether there will be a necessity to provide tractor storage for the operations that are proposed on the site.

11. Councillor Paul Kander felt that it was a simple application. Taking the application on its merits, he noted it was a farm that had use for tractors and suggested that if it had not been called in, then it would not have come to committee. He indicated that he was supportive of the application.

12. Councillor Justin Pemberton agreed with the points made by Councillor Kander, and noted the concerns raised by the Ward Member and the history of actions of the site. He felt that there had been little discussion regarding the impact of the building on the local landscape, which he believed would be minimal, taking into consideration the barn’s height, scale, and appearance. He indicated that he was in favour of the application.

13. Councillor Clive Taylor agreed with the points raised by Councillor Kander and Councillor Pemberton. Although he had been disturbed by some of the objectors’ comment on the portal, on balance, he was in favour of the application.

14. Councillor Justin Pemberton proposed to accept the Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update. This was seconded by Councillor Paul Kander.

15. The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Justin Pemberton, seconded by Councillor Paul Kander to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions in the main report and update report