Agenda item

Proposed development of rural worker’s dwelling

Land to south and east of North Side Farm, Harlow Hill

There were no questions arising from the site visit videos which had been circulated prior to the meeting.

The West DM Area Manager introduced the application with the aid of a powerpoint presentation and provided the following update:

·        The objection received for the application at Northside Farm was to be disregarded as the objector’s address had been unable to be verified.

Mrs. Lockey, the applicant and owner, addressed the Committee to speak in support of the application.  She stated:

·        In 2010 the farm had been diversified to include a wedding venue, glamping pods and cottage in addition to the farm, livestock had recently been introduced.

·        The business had grown and expanded following reinvestment over the years.  However, as it grew the demands and requirements on site had increased making it more difficult when not on site.

·        The lack of on-site presence was putting a strain on the family and business.

·        There was a greater security risk with livestock on the farm and an essential need to live on site.

·        They had withstood an 18-month closure due to the pandemic but to operate effectively, it was essential they lived on site.

·        They had followed advice of the original case officer and had withdrawn the original application submitted in 2019 and had resubmitted when the livestock were on the farm.  They were frustrated with inconsistencies and new issues being raised by the second case officer, such as Section 106 financial contributions.

·        The application sought permission for the development of a rural workers dwelling in the Green Belt.  There was a genuine essential need for a dwelling on site which would amount to very special circumstances.  This type of development was supported by the NPPF which seeks to support a prosperous rural economy and promote the development of land based rural businesses.  The principle of development was acceptable as the essential need to be on site had been demonstrated and confirmed within Alan Jackson’s report.  The proposal should therefore be looked at positively.

·        Permission was not being sought for a standalone dwelling, if approved it would satisfy a genuine essential need.

·        The NPPF enabled the provision of homes where there was an essential need for a rural worker; the development was needed to ensure animal health and welfare, deal with emergencies, ensure security on the farm, daily livestock management and manage up to 270 guests and staff as part of the wedding business.  They believed there was no other suitable accommodation which could accommodate their family and requirement to be on site.

·        The essential need to be on site had been demonstrated by the Council’s independent surveyor and evidence presented to the case officer illustrated the development was in accordance with relevant planning policy.

·        The case officer did not support their application as he did not deem there to be an essential need to live on site, just a functional need.  This was against the advisor’s findings and recommendations.  They did not understand the difference and asked for clarification of the definitions.

·        They did not want to destroy the Green Belt; this was their livelihood and a lifetime’s work and dedication to the farm and business.

·        Members were asked to support the application, business and employees and would be invaluable to ensure the business could continue to grow and thrive.

·        They welcomed a site visit if this would be useful to members.

In response to questions from Members the following information was provided:-

·        Officers needed to assess whether it was essential for someone to live on site or desirable, the distinction between these was important.  The independent assessment had found that there was some functional need to live on site and equated to 0.5 of a rural worker to be on site.  Permission could not be granted unless this was at least one full time employee and given the size of the farm holding, it would be unlikely to require one full time worker.  All of the land-based businesses had been considered when coming to this conclusion.  The business was operating at present without anyone living on site, and whilst the applicant was finding this more difficult and it would be desirable for them to live on site, it was not classed as essential as the business could operate without this.

·        Officers had therefore concluded there was no need.  However, if this had been demonstrated, they would look at other properties on or near the site.  The site was located close to Horsley village, which could provide opportunities to live closer to the site.  There was also an available house on the site, which was currently being used as an office, although it did not have planning permission for this use, it was a 3-bedroom dwelling.  Previously approval had been sought to extend this property.

·        Whilst Horsley village was the closest settlement, relevant distances were set out in para 7.54 of the officer report and not within walking distance of the site, along country lanes and would not be easy to get to without transport.  A decision whether someone was needed to live on site all of the time or whether somewhere close by would be sufficient to serve the needs required by the site.  Marketing research on other properties in the vicinity had not been undertaken as it had not been required with another property being available on site.

·        There were no planning restrictions which prevented the wedding venue or holiday accommodation being used all year round, but the nature of the wigwam structures would likely make it more seasonal.  Approximately 40 weddings per year were held at the moment, although this could vary.

·        The 3-bedroom property on site had been tenanted and more recently had become vacant.  Planning permission had not been sought for change of use, although it was currently being used as an office, it was still available as a dwelling.  A significant extension had been refused planning permission and had been dismissed on appeal.  This had been due to the design and scale of the extension in the Green Belt.  A prior approval application, using permitted development rights, had been successful and would have substantially increased the size of the property.  That approval had now expired but could be applied for again.

·        The livestock included 16 Galloway heifers which would be put to a bull in 2022.  The calves anticipated in 2023 would be reared until 20 months of age.  They also had 160 lambs which had been purchased in January 2021.

·        The original permissions for expansion were based on farm diversification had been approved some time previously.  There was no specific policy which permitted glamping pods in the Green Belt.  These were allowed as part of the farm diversification scheme of North Side Farm.

·        The proposal was for a 5-bedroom house.  There were no policies which determined the size of dwelling for an agriculture or rural worker’s dwelling.  The relevant test was whether there was an essential need as opposed to desirable need.

·        Exceptions for appropriate development in the Green Belt included agriculture or forestry, however this typically meant buildings, not dwellings.  There was no exception for a rural worker’s dwelling in the Green Belt although some capacity was required to allow it given the amount of Green Belt in the county and amount of land-based enterprises where there was an essential need and enough to warrant very special circumstances.

·        The farm was located on 27 hectares or 68 acres.

·        Determination of the size of a rural worker’s dwelling had previously been prescribed in PPS7 and related to the size of the enterprise rather than the needs of the applicant.  However, this policy was no longer relevant and the NPPG was less restrictive.  The land-based enterprises on the site had been considered together with the agricultural holding.

·        Whilst the assessment stated that it would be desirable for one worker to live on site, it would be unreasonable to say they had to live there alone, without family.

·        Guidance stated that a dwelling between 150 m2 and 250 m2 would be reasonable; the dwelling proposed was 240 m2 and therefore within these parameters.  The case worker did not have concerns regarding the size which did not have to be commensurate with the size of the holding, but essential need must be demonstrated.

Councillor Horncastle proposed that the application be granted, contrary to the officer recommendation, as he considered this was very similar to another site within the Tynedale area where there was dual use.  He believed that the 2 parts of the rural business should be considered together and referred to the independent assessment.  This stated that, to cover the wedding venue, lodges and glamping pods enterprise with the livestock enterprise, it would be desirable to have one full time worker resident on the farm to meet the functional need and there was no suitable dwelling on site.

The West DM Area Manager explained that the independent assessment was treated as a consultee and officers formed their own view of his response.  It was also important to make a distinction between the word desirable, which the consultant had used, and essential.  She stated that the consultant was perhaps not aware of the status of the building currently used as an office but was in fact a three-bedroom dwelling.

The Solicitor sought clarification regarding the reasons for making the decision.  It was confirmed that it was necessary to establish that there was an essential need, there was nowhere else available on the site and together these presented very special circumstances in the Green Belt which outweighed any harm that construction of the dwelling would cause.

She added that the motion would need to include reference to the addition of conditions, which would need to be delegated to the Director of Planning, following consultation with the Vice-Chair (Planning) and completion of Section 106 agreements for financial contributions towards outdoor sports facilities, children’s play provision or open space facilities.  Reasons would also need to be provided with reference to the very special circumstances and consideration of harm, purpose and impact on openness in the Green Belt.

The motion to grant permission was seconded by Councillor Homer.

The Development Service Manager summarised the reasons for the motion to approve the application expressed earlier by Councillor Horncastle.  In his opinion, the application:

·        Met the essential needs test as they had livestock together with the wedding venue on site, based upon the information in the Independent Assessment.

·        Whilst it did not meet the exceptions in the Green Belt, due to there being an essential need for a worker on site, very special circumstances had been demonstrated and outweighed the harm to the Green Belt.

·        A legal agreement would be required and financial contribution of £4,352 to meet obligations towards sport and play arising from the development.

·        Delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning to agree conditions for the application, following consultation with the Vice-Chair (Planning).

Concern was expressed by some members that this would set a precedent for future applications.  Reference was also made to the dwelling that was currently being used as an office.

Upon being put to the vote, the results were as follows:

FOR: 3; AGAINST: 10; ABSTENTION: 0.

The motion therefore failed.

Councillor Hutchinson proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.  This was seconded by Councillor Waddell.

Upon being put to the vote the results were as follows:

FOR: 10; AGAINST: 3; ABSTENTION: 0.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED permission for the reasons outlined in the report.