Agenda item

Construction of new agricultural dwelling (Re-submission)

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Elwyn Edwards

Link to relevant background documents

 

DECISION: To approve the application contrary to the recommendation, subject to the following conditions:

1.    In accordance with the plans.

2.    Five years.

3.    Materials / finishes

4.    Rural enterprise use condition

5.    Restricted to C3 use only.

6.    Landscaping

7.    Biodiversity enhancements.

8.    Details of the boundary fence

9.    A Welsh name for the development

 

Note

SUDS

Protect the public footpath

 

Construction of new agricultural dwelling (Resubmission)

Attention was drawn to the late observations form which contained observations from the Biodiversity Unit and Natural Resources Wales

 

a)    The Development Control Team Leader highlighted that this was a full application for erecting a new agricultural dwelling and detached garage on a plot of land in Parc y Derw Goed, Llandderfel.

The site lay within an elevated position, far outside any recognised development boundary and was therefore a site in open countryside. The site was served by a byway track, and public footpath number 42 Llandderfel ran to the north of the site. The site was within a Special Landscape Area designation, and had been recognised as a Phosphate Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The fields to the south of the site had been recognised as Local Wildlife Sites.

 

It was explained that the application was a resubmission of application no. C23/0409/04/LL for exactly the same proposal. The application was refused on 17 July 2023 under delegated rights as the Local Planning Authority was not convinced that the proposal met the locational needs for an agricultural dwelling because of its distance from the farm.

 

A Design and Access Statement, letters of support from NFU Cymru and the Agri Advisor Service, together with a Business Plan from Farming Connect (confidential) were submitted as part of the application.

 

The application was submitted to the Committee at the local member’s request.

 

It was reiterated, as a result of the need to preserve and protect the countryside, that very special justification was required to approve the construction of new houses there, and therefore, new dwellings in the countryside were only approved in exceptional circumstances. Those exceptional circumstances under which new dwellings in the countryside may be approved were included in Technical Advice Note 6 (TAN6): Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities - July 2010, prepared by the Welsh Assembly Government.

 

A Business Plan was submitted as part of the application, prepared by Farming Connect, which confirmed that the applicant had been farming in partnership with his father since 2012. The Business Plan provided the background of the enterprise together with details about the size of the holding, stock numbers, labour requirements and financial details about the enterprise's viability. The proposal would therefore be a second dwelling on an established farm, with the applicant running the farm with his father. Reference was made to the following criteria, noting when considering the need that:

 

a)  there was a clearly established existing functional need;

b)  the need related to a full-time worker, and did not relate to a part-time requirement;

c)   the enterprise concerned had been established for at least three years, profitable for at least one of them, and both the enterprise and the business need for the job, was currently financially sound, and had a clear prospect of remaining so;

d)  the functional need could not be fulfilled by another dwelling or by converting an existing suitable building that was already on the land holding comprising the enterprise, or any other existing accommodation in the locality which was suitable and available for occupation by the worker concerned;

e)  other normal planning requirements, for example location and access, had been satisfied.

 

From the information submitted, it appeared that the applicant met the requirements of tests a), b) and c) noted above, and as noted there are no suitable traditional buildings that could be converted into a dwelling on the holding to meet test d).

 

It was highlighted that the site in question was poor quality agricultural land, where there was an existing track and a water and electricity supply in proximity. It was argued that the site nestled naturally behind a hillock, was well-screened and where biodiversity could be improved. It was added that the applicant wanted to avoid locating the dwelling in a prominent position in the landscape, and considered this to be a sheltered, well-screened location. The site was around 650 metres as the crow flies from Derw Goed farmhouse and the associated farm buildings.

 

Whilst the explanation was appreciated, the Planning Authority had not been fully convinced that it would not be possible to develop on some of the disregarded locations, such as on land near the farmhouse or on other locations not shown in the valley closer to the farm. It was considered that there were other options available for monitoring the land, such as CCTV. It was believed that the location of the proposed dwelling encroached unreasonably into the countryside and was excessively detached from the farm holding which would encourage fragmentation of the farm, and was therefore contrary to the requirements of sections 4.7.1 and 4.12 of TAN 6.

 

No open market valuation (red book) was received as part of the application. Policy TAN 6 stated that new dwellings in the countryside would only be approved in exceptional circumstances. The Local Planning Authority had not been truly convinced that this was the most suitable location for an agricultural dwelling without assurance that the property would be affordable in the long term. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policy PCYFF 1 and PS17 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan and sections 4.7.1, 4.12 and 4.13 of Technical Advice Note 6 - Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (2010) which ensured that new dwellings in open countryside may only be permitted in specific and exceptional circumstances.

 

It was noted that design and visual amenities, residential amenities, and road matters were acceptable and conditions had been proposed for managing the Biodiversity matters and overcoming the drainage matters.

 

In conclusion, it was noted that the proposal remained contrary to the locational needs that are set out in TAN 6 because the agricultural dwelling would be too separate from the existing farm. It was also questioned whether this location could ensure that the property could be affordable in the long term, should the agricultural use cease. The previous application for exactly the same proposal was refused, and although a little more justification had been presented on the current application, the officers had not been truly convinced that this was the most suitable location for an agricultural dwelling. Although some matters relating to amenities and roads were acceptable, the proposal did not meet all the relevant policy considerations. These concerns were stated in a response to the pre-application enquiry and in the previous refusal, but the applicant decided to proceed to resubmit the application. The recommendation was to refuse the application.

 

b)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent made the following observations:

·         That the farm had belonged to the family for 80 years

·         That the need had been proved

·         That the location of the application had been carefully considered - cases of dogs killing sheep and of the land being driven over - the location of the house would be a means of keeping an eye on activity over 24 hours

·         That the site was central to the farm's land - to keep an eye on stock that was out all year

·         That the site was in a sheltered position

·         That an access track existed

·         That the site was not visible from the road

·         That building the dwelling would reduce the need to move and travel

·         That the fields closest to the farm were productive fields (grazing and silage)

·         That the location called for a presence to overcome the problems of incidents and provided a home for a young, local family

 

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

·         That the site was not visible from anywhere but the farm

·         That the applicant had complied with biodiversity matters

·         The location was a matter of opinion

·         That another application had been granted with two miles between the farm and the proposed site - how was that application therefore in line with the policy and this one in contravention?

 

ch)     It was proposed and seconded to approve the application contrary to the recommendation - that the dwelling was in an ideal location to protect stock and reduce carbon footprint

 

d)         In response to a question regarding a condition to ensure agricultural occupancy, the Assistant Head stated that a condition would have to be set that would limit the use to agriculture only together with a condition that would comply with the conditions of affordable housing/affordable price and standard conditions.

 

RESOLVED: To approve the application contrary to the recommendation, subject to the following conditions:

 

1. In accordance with the plans.
2. Five years.
3. Materials/finishes.
4. Rural enterprise use condition.
5. Restricted to C3 use only.
6. Landscaping.
7. Biodiversity enhancements.
8. Details of the boundary fence.
9. A Welsh name for the development.

 

Note

SuDS

Protect the public footpath.