Agenda item

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Strategic

Place Development Management together with comments of public speakers,

additional information reported by the officers and information detailed in the late representations updates document previously circulated.

Public Speaker, Supporter – Application supports local businesses by providing accommodation for employees, need to adapt to changing economic circumstances and keep the Estate viable, which is on the verge of financial difficulty and which supports local businesses, lack of housing stock in the area due to second homes, there is local demand for accommodation, and the current residents are valuable members of the community, providing services to local people.

The Chairman referred to a representation from a Ward Member unable to attend the meeting in support of the application advising that refusal could risk the viability of the Estate, and effect the community which the estate supported.

Comments from Councillors included: The inhabitant is an agricultural engineer who could work from elsewhere, benefits of being able to work from home, keep village population from falling, rural worker support, no structural change to the dwelling is required and therefore the effect on the AGLV was negligible, need for suitable conditions, lack of amenities in Ashcombe, accords with Policy S22, lack of evidence that the previous use of the dwelling as holiday accommodation was redundant, open market dwelling in the countryside contrary to policy, and approval of which would set a precedent; the Estate supports the community and local businesses; and approval could be personal to the applicant.

In response to comments, the Business Manager advised that this was an open market dwelling in the countryside contrary to policy, there was no evidence for permanent occupancy, no justification; and that approval personal to the applicant was not encouraged, and difficult to enforce. 

Other comments by Councillors included: Could this be classified as a class Q, lack of evidence for the application, which should be requested of the applicant; the application is ambiguous; and a condition may be added in regards to the addition of more evidence.

The Business Manager reiterated that policies in the Local Plan were clear, the application was contrary to policy, and there was no evidence for approval of permanent occupancy. The Solicitor emphasised that there was no sound reason to make an exception to policy in this case. A new application would be required with evidence and justification for permanent occupancy for an agricultural/rural worker.

It was proposed by Councillor Wrigley that the application be approved on the basis that it is not a new build in the countryside, it is already used for permanent occupancy, and it would support the Estate on the verge of financial difficulty, which supports the community. This was seconded by Councillor MacGregor.

Resolved

Permission be granted with unconditional consent.

(13 for, 1 against, and 1 abstention)

Note: The approval of this application was contrary to the advice of the Business Manage as set out in the agenda report. The Committee considered that the application was acceptable for the reasons detailed above, and below.

Statement of reasons

The decision to approve the application was against officer recommendation.

The Committee considered the application acceptable for the following reasons; the application will not alter the existing building, the application is unique, it is not a new build in the countryside, it is already used year round, and it would support the Estate on the verge of financial difficulty, which supports the community and local businesses.