Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused for the reason detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment). 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 21^st March 2016.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.

            The officer detailed the background to the application and drew Members’ attention to the late observations where the size of the park home was clarified. 

            Mr. J. Williams, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He felt that there were two issues in relation to the application which were the urbanisation of the open countryside and the need for the park home.  He referred to the intended siting of the park home which Members had seen on the site visit and suggested that approval of the application in this location would not lead to the urbanisation of the countryside.  On the issue of need, he said that it was a family run rural enterprise and the location of the park home was important to allow the continuation of the equine nature of the business. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He felt that the relative that wanted to retire could live elsewhere to allow those running the businesses to live in the farmhouse.  He queried why the application had required consideration by the Committee as he felt it was unwarranted and unnecessary and should have been refused under delegated powers.  Councillor Gareth Roberts said that it had been suggested that the park home was needed to be close to the horses but he felt that the farmhouse was suitably located for this purpose.  He felt that approving this application would set a precedent and refusing other applications in similar locations would be difficult. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Chris Dolphin, spoke in support of the application.  He felt that the proposal complied with Technical Advice Note (TAN) 6 and concurred with the agent that it would not lead to the urbanisation of the countryside.  He felt that the provision of the park home was appropriate and it contributed to the rural enterprise which employed local people.  Paragraph 7.03 referred to the reasons for the provision of the park home and why it was unreasonable for all of the family members to share the farmhouse and the report also provided details of the financial reports that had been submitted by the applicant which justified the need for a worker to live on site to be close to their work.  Councillor Dolphin referred to the proposed location of the park home which would be closer to the stables than the farmhouse and was therefore necessary. 

            Councillor Richard Jones disagreed with the need for the park home and felt that approval would set a precedent.  Councillor Owen Thomas agreed with Councillor Dolphin that the application should be approved and that there was a need to accommodate the worker required for the livery business.  Councillor Derek Butler felt that there was no planning reason to permit the application which was for a new building in the open countryside.  In referring to paragraph 7.15, Councillor Mike Peers queried where the visual detriment applied to.  He referred to the site visit where Members had seen two caravan parks in the area and a nearby plant hire business and said that there was a need to consider what was already in the area.  He asked whether the park home was required for a member of the family or for a worker employed by the family.  Councillor Nancy Matthews queried why the application was not for an agricultural workers dwelling which could be considered in open countryside. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that the visual detriment would be because the park home would be able to be seen from the track if it was permitted.  He added that it was intended that the daughter and her family would use the park home to run the livery side of the business. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager said that permitting such an application in open countryside without good planning reason would set a precedent and would have an impact on the open countryside even if the site could not be seen by the public.  He felt that the reason for the park home did not outweigh the Council’s policies and added that there was no need for a worker to live on site.  In response to the question from Councillor Matthews, the Planning Strategy Manager said that the application had not been submitted as being for an agricultural workers dwelling but as a result of the businesses being separated.              

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused for the reason detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).