Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent, and Mr Brownlow, the applicant. Mrs Jackson stated that this application is for an occupational dwelling to be used to be used to support Mr and Mrs Brownlow’s existing agricultural enterprise and the site is located on land within the existing agricultural holding. She stated that it has been specifically chosen as it is the land closest to the centre of Gorefield and is positioned amongst other buildings, with the dwelling providing a long-term solution for Mr and Mrs Brownlow when they retire being close to the village with its associated amenities.

Mrs Jackson advised that Mr Brownlow is currently actively working on the farm and is in the process of moving his family into the business to secure the long-term viability of the farm, with the new dwelling allowing Mr Brownlow to continue working until he retires whilst allowing his family to move into the existing farmhouse at Harolds Bridge where they can begin to take over the business. She expressed the view that there is a need for an agricultural dwelling associated with the farm as the applicants have lived in the farmhouse for a considerable time, with the existing farmhouse not being agriculturally tied and, therefore, this application presents an opportunity to secure a dwelling for the exclusive use of the farm which will complete the business offering.

Mrs Jackson expressed the opinion that the difference between this application and the previous refusal is that they are now asking for an occupational dwelling linked to the farm and not for open market housing. She stated that Mr and Mrs Brownlow are passionate about Gorefield, have lived their all their lives and want to be close to the village centre, with this particular site being chosen due to it being on part of the holding and in close proximity to the village centre and the remainder of the farm.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that being amongst existing dwellings she fails to see how harm is caused to the character and appearance of the countryside given that this is effectively an infill type of development within a cluster of existing properties. She referred to the sequential test and expressed the opinion that as per the Design and Access Statement and the submitted Flood Risk Assessment there are no alternative sites which could accommodate the dwelling or are at a lower risk of flooding, with the additional sequential test report that was circulated yesterday providing further details of the application of the sequential test.

Mrs Jackson stated that the committee report at Paragraph 2.2 acknowledges that the site is at very low risk of surface water flooding and she referred to Paragraph 175 of the NPPF which states that the sequential test is not required if a flood risk assessment demonstrates that the site is safe. She highlighted to members that the submission demonstrates that the sequential test is passed and given the Flood Risk Assessment shows the development technically safe from flooding and that the proposal will support an existing rural enterprise to the benefit of the local community, in her view, the exception test is also passed.

Mrs Jackson summarised that this application is for an agricultural dwelling to support an agricultural enterprise, it is an optimum location being amongst existing properties on land within the farm ownership and as close to the village centre as possible, the proposal will secure the long-term viability of the farm, the development passes the sequential test due to there being no other land available within the holding which is at lower risk of flooding, the development complies with policies of the development plan and she requested that planning permission is granted.

Members asked questions of Mrs Jackson and Mr Brownlow as follows:

·         Councillor Marks asked if the farm is next door to this site? Mr Brownlow indicated no. Councillor Marks asked how far away is the farm? Mr Brownlow responded that as the crow flies it is about a mile, being two roads over. Councillor Marks asked how far by road? Mr Brownlow stated about 1½ miles.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked Mr Brownlow how far away from the farm does he live now? Mr Brownlow responded that he lives on the farm currently but he is 68 this year, is looking to retire and he wants his son to take over the farm.

·         Councillor Connor asked Mr Brownlow to pinpoint where he lives? Mr Brownlow stated that he lives at Harolds Bridge.

·         Councillor Benney asked Mr Brownlow how many acres he farms and what he farms? Mr Brownlow responded that 270 acres and it is all arable, being mostly hay.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks stated that he is finding it hard to see an agricultural tie due to the distance from the farm. David Rowen responded that a lot of the information given by the agent is not included in the application but there is no justification and nothing to demonstrate why this particular site needs to have a dwelling on it and there could be other properties that could be purchased in Gorefield. Matthew Leigh added that it needs to be taken into account the information that was submitted as part of the application and 90% of what has been said is not in the Design and Access Statement or any supporting documents.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the view that it is an incomplete application and he does not feel that just being an arable hay farm makes much difference to living on site and he does not think there is the same need as there is when it is livestock.

·         Councillor Benney stated that there have been plenty of other agricultural sites that come forward where the family are taking over the farm and want a dwelling but it is usually on the farm itself.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the planning history and that in 2018 there were two dwellings refused on the site and asked if this was from the same applicant? David Rowen responded that from his recollection it was.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Marks declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he had been lobbied on this application but remains open-minded)