Agenda item

Outline application for the erection of a rural enterprise dwelling.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Peter Garlick

Link to relevant background documents

Outline application for the erection of a rural enterprise dwelling.

(a)      The Senior Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application and noted that the Gypsy Wood site operated as a family park attraction. It was explained that the Gypsy Wood site was located approximately 250m from the development boundary of the village of Bontnewydd and that in terms of the Local Development Plan, it was located in open countryside. As a result of the need to maintain and protect the countryside, special justification was needed to approve the construction of new houses in the countryside. It was noted that Policy PS17 of the LDP stated that only housing developments that complied with Planning Policy Wales and Technical Advice Note (TAN) 6: Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities, would be approved in open countryside.

         Attention was drawn to paragraph 4.3.1 TAN6 which noted that one of the few circumstances in which new isolated residential development in the open countryside may be justified was when accommodation was required to enable rural enterprise workers to live at, or close to, their place of work.  It was further explained that this essential need for accommodation would depend on the needs of the rural enterprise concerned and not on the personal preference or circumstances of the applicant. It was added that applications for planning permission for new rural enterprise dwellings should be carefully assessed to ensure that a departure from the usual policy of restricting development in the open countryside could be fully justified.

         It was explained, from the information submitted with the application, that the applicant had undertaken a 50% partnership with Mr and Mrs Evans, the landowners. It was noted that as Mr and Mrs Evans still owned 50% of the business; owned the land where the business was located and lived on the site; it was considered that any functional need, namely the need for a full-time worker to exist on the site at all times to deal with unexpected situations, had been met with the current property on the site. Attention was drawn to the fact that the TAN did not permit a second home on a rural enterprise site and therefore it was considered that the functional requirements of the rural enterprise had been met in full with the current provision. 

         It was recommended that the Committee should refuse the application as the application site was located in open countryside from a planning policy perspective, and that any functional need that existed with the business on the site was already met, and that constructing an additional dwelling on this site would therefore be contrary to the requirements of policies PCYFF 1 and PS17 of the Local Development Plan.

         It was reported that a last-minute letter had been received from the landowner's solicitor, noting that the landowners intended to agree a lease for the whole site with the applicant. It was noted that it was not considered that there was any point in deferring the application, as such an arrangement would be time-consuming, and that the application would have to be re-assessed in the context of Technical Advice Note 6.

(b)     The application was supported by the local member (not a member of this Planning Committee), who made the following main points:-

·         The applicant had substantially developed the site over the past two years;

·         The business was important to the local economy and to Gwynedd as a whole;

·         Requested the Committee to either approve or defer the application in light of the letter dated 26 April from the landowner's solicitor. The landowner would not own the business in future, and the applicant would continue with the business;

·         The business employed six full-time staff members, and during the summer, it employed up to 25 staff;

·         The application was essential to ensure the continuity of the business, and consideration should be given to deferring the application as the Committee had not had time to consider the letter from the landowner's solicitor, that was an important document in the context of the application.

(c)     It was proposed and seconded to defer the application.

         The Planning Manager noted that it would be an open-ended deferral; if the Committee refused the application the applicant would have the right to submit another application free of charge within one year of the refusal date. She added that there was no doubt that the business contributed to the economy, but the application would need to be re-assessed and that there was also an option for the applicant to withdraw the application.

         A member noted that there was no purpose to an open-ended deferral, and asked whether the existing property was tied to the business. In response, the Planning Manager confirmed that the existing property was not tied to the business. The member asked whether the application could be approved with the property tied to the business, in order to ensure that the property could not be sold separately to the business. He added that he sympathised with the local member, but that the enterprise would not be protected by approving the house, and it could be argued that if the existing property was not tied to the business, that it would not necessarily meet the long-term need.

In response to the member’s observations, the Planning Manager noted that this was true, but that there was no certainty that the lease would be signed and that the existing property would not be available. She further noted that it was recommended that the application should be refused. The applicant could then submit an application in future after signing the lease, and submit a pre-application request for advice, as the considerations would have changed due to the new circumstances.

         The Senior Solicitor noted that he understood the desire to defer the application, the application needed to be re-assessed in its entirety due to the change in future circumstances that were too ambiguous to be able to reach a decision. He added that the Committee had not had an opportunity to see the letter, and that the Committee had the option of requesting a short deferral to establish clarity.

         In response, the Senior Planning Service Manager noted that as a pragmatic response the Committee could consider deferring the application to the next meeting in May, and that the report submitted to the meeting would include information about the letter.

A member noted that refusing the application would be the most straightforward option, as the application would be stronger when the lease was operational. The member added that the need was currently being met by the existing property, but that the content of the letter from the landowner's solicitor should be considered, and that it therefore made sense to defer the application.

RESOLVED to defer the application until the next Planning Committee meeting in May.