Agenda item

Councillor Austen-application 18/01603/FUL declared an Appendix A, Paragraph 14 Interest by virtue of a close relative residing adjacent to the application site. Councillor Austen took no part in the debate or voting of this application.

Public Speaker, Objector – In addition to objections submitted by the Parish Council objections of the ground that the business has been running successfully since 2013 without a full time worker on site; resubmission of an application refused in June 2018; series of planning applications since 2012 including retrospective applications; applicant currently lives 30 minute drive away; access and highway safety; narrow highway network not suitable for large horse boxes. 

Public Speaker, Supporter – the application is in accordance with the Local Plan; additional information is available for consideration since the previous refusal; the Council’s agricultural adviser has concluded there is a proven, functional need for a worker to live on site to ensure the welfare of the horses and the future of the business; duty of care and animal codes of welfare responsibilities; the business has grown; and the Council can test the business success in 3 years’ time with the temporary permission.

Comments made by Councillors included: the 9 letters of support are from individuals as far away as Cornwall; successful business but the site is just 250 metres from the village, on a ridge with panoramic views but the activity associated with the business is on the other site of the ridge and not close to the proposed location for the mobile home; the planning history includes the building of an isolation unit in connection with the livery business, constructed differently to permission; and the construction of 8 stables contrary to permission for 4.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the agricultural consultant had taken the proximity of the village into account in concluding the essential need for a full time worker on site. The Business Manager added that the NPPF included guidance on dwellings for rural workers and the main issue was whether there was an essential need for a worker to be resident on-site.

Further comments from Councillors included: the location of the mobile home is not in view of the business; there were available properties within 500 metres of the site; and there is no need for the mobile home. 

It was proposed by Councillor Connett, seconded by Councillor Fusco and

Resolved

Permission be refused for the following reason:

The proposal constitutes residential development outside any settlement limit, and hence within a countryside location, where it has not been adequately justified that there is an essential functional need arising from the equine business for a worker to be housed on the site. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies WE9 (Rural Workers’ Dwellings) and S22 (Countryside) of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 and the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Practice Guidance.

(12 votes for and 3 against)

Note:  The refusal of the application was contrary to the advice of the Business Manager. The Committee considered the application unacceptable for reasons set out above.