Outline application for the erection of a rural enterprise dwelling.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Peter Garlick
Minutes:
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.
Supporting documents: