Agenda item

Change of use of forestry building to dwelling.

18/01226/FUL - Councillor Smith, the Chairman declared an interest in this application, on the grounds of predetermination, by virtue of his membership of Ipplepen Parish Council, and left the meeting while the matter was discussed and determined.

In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman chaired the meeting for this item.

Public Speaker, supporter – He managed the family forestry business which has been in existence for several years. The agricultural building was constructed in 2011 to replace a dilapidated building. Incidents of theft amounting to the loss of £20k worth of business equipment, and difficulties in obtaining insurance cover resulted in him residing at the building for security purposes. The community supported the residential use of the building.

Comments from Members included: the forestry business is successful and employs 5 full time workers; there is an essential functional need for a full time employee on site; there is no other dwelling on the holding which meets the need; it could be tied for the family and the forestry business; and that there is an essential need in view of the security risks to the business.

It was proposed by Councillor Prowse and seconded by Councillor Fusco that the application be approved subject to the dwelling being ancillary to the business.

The Business Manager urged caution, reminding the Committee that for similar situations an application is supported by an agricultural consultant’s report. Permission would be granted for temporary residential use only for a caravan for example, not permanent residential use of a permanent structure.

The Planning Officer referred Members to the report circulated with the agenda and the officer recommendation of refusal on several grounds including contrary to Policies WE9 and S22. There is not sufficient information to consider the permanent residence of the dwelling. The Business Manager added that an agricultural workers application should be submitted if the Committee are minded to approve permanent residency of the agricultural building. Such an application would provide the additional information required, including an agricultural report to justify approval of the application. The material considerations do not outweigh the need for the permanent residency of the building.

The Legal Adviser urged the Committee to defer the application for the receipt of further information.

A member of the Committee concluded that the application was not supported with the relevant information under Policy WE9 and therefore there was not sufficient information to approve the application contrary to the officer recommendation.

The Business Manager added that she had sympathy with the views of the Members, however the application should be deferred for further information on how the residency, currently contrary to policy could be controlled, when there was no application for an agricultural workers dwelling, merely a change of use of an agricultural building.

Councillor Prowse then advised she wished to withdraw the proposal for approval and propose deferment for further information. Councillor Fusco agreed and seconded the proposal for deferment.

Councillor Rollason proposed that that the application be approved because the security issues were paramount to the success of the business. This proposal was seconded by Councillor J Hook who added that the application was sustainable.

The Business Manager advised that should the Committee be minded to approve the application, a Section 106 Agreement was essential to tie the dwelling to the agricultural business, and that planning permission should be subject only to the satisfactory completion of such an agreement, which delegated authority could be granted to her to complete.

Councillor Prowse advised that she wished to withdraw the proposal for deferment. Councillor Fusco proposed deferment for further information. This was seconded by Councillor Bullivant. A vote was taken and lost by 4 votes for, 10 against and 1 abstention. A vote on the proposal for approval was taken and carried by 12 votes for, 1 against and 2 abstentions.

Resolved

Delegated authority be granted to the Business Manager, Development Management, in consultation with the Ward Member to grant permission subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement to tie the dwelling to the business, and subject to conditions including addressing the following:

1.     Removal of Permitted Development Rights.

2.     Standard time condition.

3.     Works in accordance with approved plans.

(12 votes for, 1 against and 2 abstentions)