Agenda item

Erection of rural enterprise dwelling and associated work

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Arwyn Herald Roberts

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To approve the application contrary to the recommendation. Consequently, the application will be referred to a cooling-off period before being returned to the Committee for a final decision.

 

Construction of a rural enterprise house and associated work.

 

a)    The Planning Manager highlighted that this was a full application to construct a rural enterprise house and ancillary works. The house would be in the form of a dormer bungalow and would measure 115 square metres and would include a porch, office, toilet, multi-purpose room, sitting room, dining room and kitchen on the ground floor and three bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor.

 

The farm was described as one that extends to 84ha; the applicant owns 59ha and rents 24.3ha on a long-term tenancy, with 84ha being used as grazing land, 20ha for silage (one cut) and 8ha for silage (two cuts) and used as grazing land. The farm includes 118 cows with calves, 120 sheep, and 4 sows and 12 boars and 27 piglets. The applicant is also in partnership with Natural Resources Wales for grazing 1,618ha of common land.

 

A Design Statement and the business' accounts were submitted as a part of the application.

 

The application was submitted to the Planning Committee at the request of the local member.

 

It was highlighted that the site would be beyond the farmyard and outside any development boundary as defined by the Local Development Plan (LDP) with Policy PCYFF 1 stating, outside development boundaries, that proposals will be refused unless they are in accordance with other policies in the local development plan, national policies or if the proposal shows that their location in the countryside is essential. It was reiterated, as a result of the need to maintain and protect the countryside, that very special justification was required to approve the construction of new houses there, and therefore, new houses in the countryside were only approved in very exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances under which new houses in the countryside could be approved are included in Technical Advice Note 6: Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities - July 2010 (TAN6) prepared by the Welsh Assembly Government, and the associated Technical Guidance document.

 

Reference was made to paragraph 4.3.1 of TAN6, which notes that one of the few circumstances in which a new isolated residential development in the open countryside can be justified is when accommodation is required to enable a rural enterprise worker to live at, or close to, his workplace. Whether this is essential in any particular case will depend on the needs of the rural enterprise concerned and not on the personal preference or circumstances of any of the individuals involved. TAN 6 also notes that Local Planning Authorities should carefully assess applications for planning permission for new rural enterprise dwellings to ensure that a departure from the usual policy of restricting development in the open countryside can be fully justified by reference to robust supporting evidence.

 

The applicant states that the business has existed for over 3 years. Business accounts for the previous three years were submitted to show that the business has made a profit in 3 of the last 4 years. Nevertheless, it appeared that there is an established business on the land, and therefore in line with the requirements of TAN 6, information must be submitted that relates to the functional test, time test, financial test and other dwellings test to prove the need and justification for the construction of a house in open countryside.

 

In the context of the financial test, the size and cost of the proposed dwelling should be assessed in relation to the enterprise’s ability to fund and maintain it without damaging the ongoing viability of the enterprise, and demonstrate reasonable likelihood that it will maintain to fund the labour costs employed for the subsequent five years. In addition, the figures provided for the Financial Test should show that the business can cope with paying workers' wages (1.5 in this case) and that there are earnings left to maintain the business and construct the house. Although an accountant has provided a statement referring to the business' profit over the past 3 years, it was not considered that the applicant has provided robust evidence to show that the financial situation of the business is sufficient in order to construct a house and therefore the application cannot be supported as it fails the financial test.

 

In the context of design matters, it was noted that the size of the proposed dwelling was being considered in relation to the enterprise's ability to fund and maintain the dwelling, as well as reflect the needs of the enterprise, but in addition, as the potential occupancy of the dwelling was extended to those who were eligible for affordable housing, the size of the dwelling should comply with Affordable Housing requirements. It was highlighted that the internal floor area of the proposal was approximately 115sq/m, which was more than the Affordable Housing requirement of 93sq/m. Therefore, it was considered that the size of the property did not comply with the requirements of Technical Advice Note 6, the LDP or Supplementary Planning Guidance: Affordable Housing.

 

Having conducted a full assessment, the LPA was of the opinion that the proposal submitted did not comply with the specific criteria for constructing a house in open countryside within the criteria proposed within Technical Advice Note number 6: Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities for constructing agricultural dwellings. It was considered that the proposal did not comply with the principle or spirit of the policies and that proposal would be an obtrusive feature in the landscape located in open countryside.

 

b)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following observations:

·         That four generations of the family had been tenants on the land within the Glynllifon Estate. In 2018, there came an opportunity to buy the land but the two dwellings were being sold separately.

·         That the farm buildings and the two houses were Grade 2 Listed.

·         That the son had bought one of the houses with a personal mortgage.

·         The second house had been sold separately.

·         That he had two sons and both worked (not on the farm).

·         The proposal would not be a second house - the son's house was not a house with the business. This was outside the farm's ownership.

·         That he was living in Penygroes and was travelling every day back and forth to the farm - that this was very difficult between March and April during the lambing season.

·         That it could be argued that he was the only worker who was present on the farm.

 

c)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following points:

·           This was an application to erect a house for a Welsh speaker on a site where his family had been farming the land for centuries.

·           That he had managed to buy the land in 2018 and the farm was now in a good position.

·           That the application was a re-submission - there had been no opportunity to respond to the previous application.

·           That the LPA refused the proposal and noted that there was no genuine need for two houses for the business. This was not an application for a second home - this would be the only agricultural house.

·           That there was an official need for the applicant to be on the farm - he was not expected to have to travel for hours day and night - this was immoral and far from the demands on 'staff'.

·           Although the LPA noted that the site was unsuitable, the remains of an old house could be seen on the site. It was not possible to build closer due to the Grade 2 Listed requirements on the other two houses. A site visit should be held.

·           That the business was viable and despite having slowed down a little in the past three years, it would stabilise and continue to be viable.

·           Although it was accepted that the house was slightly larger than the size of an affordable house, that this was acceptable for agricultural houses so that they met the needs of the business - in order to have space for an office, shower, etc.

·           That he, like the Community Council, supported the application.

 

ch) It was proposed and seconded to approve the application contrary to the recommendation for the reason that nobody who lived on the farm worked on the farm - that there was no house on the business site.

 

         In response to the proposal, the Assistant Head of Department noted that although he accepted the aspiration to obtain a houses on the farm, that the evidence highlighted that the applicant's son owned one of the houses on the farm and was a partner in the business. He reiterated that the applicant lived approximately 1.6m from the site, and that there was no justification of the need for a new house - the agricultural needs had already been met. The application was considered as a new house in the countryside without justification and should the proposal go against the recommendation, the application would have to be referred to a cooling off period.

 

d)    During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by Members:

·         The applicant lived 1.6m from the site, but the requirements of the job made it necessary for him to live on the site.

·         Living on the farm would reduce carbon emissions.

·         This was not an application for a second home but an application for a first agricultural house.

·         The business was growing.

·         There were remains of an old dwelling on the site.

 

In response to the proposal, the Monitoring Officer noted that if the application was approved, there would be a need to ensure standard conditions that would bind the proposal to agricultural use. He also highlighted that a 'need for a house' was not a sufficient reason to approve the application since a house already existed on the site to meet the need.

 

RESOLVED: To approve the application contrary to the recommendation. Consequently, the application will be referred to a cooling-off period before being returned to the Committee for a final decision.