Erection of a two storey four bedroom residential dwelling in open countryside with the installation of a septic tank and creation of a new vehicular access and access road.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Selwyn Grifffiths
Minutes:
Erection of a two-storey four bedroom residential
dwelling in open countryside with the installation of a septic tank and
creation of a new vehicular access and access road.
(a) The
Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted
that the application site was located outside the defined development boundary
for the Porthmadog area and consequently it was considered as a site in the
countryside.
It
was noted that paragraph 4.3.1 of Technical Advice Note (TAN) 6 'Planning for
Sustainable Rural Communities' noted that one of the few circumstances in which
a new isolated residential development in the open countryside could be
justified was when accommodation was required to enable agricultural or rural
enterprise workers to live at, or close to, their workplace. It was noted
further that the essential nature of this requirement would depend on the needs
of the rural enterprise in question in each specific case, and that it would
not depend on the personal choice or circumstances of any of the associated
individuals.
It
was highlighted that there was a reference in the application, specifically
within the Design and Access Statement, together with letters of support, to
the current agricultural use of the land along with a proposed business plan to
change the use of this land for a new sustainable business as well as a local
mountain rescue service using a part of the land. It was noted that no
information had been submitted to the Planning Service to confirm the exact
type of business proposed.
Nevertheless,
it was noted that it appeared that there was an established agricultural use on
the land, and therefore, in accordance with the requirements of TAN 6, should
the application be for a house for a full-time agricultural or rural enterprise
worker, information had to be submitted that related to functional, time,
finance and other dwelling tests to prove the need and justification for the
construction of a dwelling in open countryside. It was also noted that the
house could not be considered as an affordable house for the reasons
highlighted in the report.
It
was noted that letters of support to the proposal had been received from local
individuals and others, full attention had been given to all material planning
matters noted in the observations received.
Attention
was drawn to the fact that the applicant had submitted a formal pre-application
enquiry for the proposal as shown under reference Y16/000248. It was confirmed
in a formal response at the time that such a proposal would be contrary to the
requirements of relevant policies and that the Authority, as a result, would
not be able to support the proposal.
(b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following main points:
·
The necessity for the house to be on this site to
manage the established 90 acre farm;
·
That paragraph 4.5.1 of TAN 6 noted that it could
be appropriate and that it was essential for the house to be located on the
site in order to manage the farm in its current form along with another rural
enterprise;
·
That the proposal was acceptable in relation to
paragraphs 4.5.3 and 4.6 of TAN 6;
·
That a ruin was located on the application site;
·
That there was no flood risk on the site;
·
That the proposal would provide a home for a family
and secure the continuation of a family business and satisfy current needs and
the needs of future generations;
·
That Porthmadog Town Council and local residents
were supportive.
(c) The
local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) noted the following main
points:
·
That he was in favour of the developments
considering the lack of houses in the area as the majority of Porthmadog was
within the flood zone;
·
Questioned whether the site was in the countryside
as the rescue team building, industrial works and a caravan site was located
nearby;
·
That the design was acceptable and the size made
sense for a family of five;
·
That the proposal would provide a permanent home for a local family;
·
That the rural enterprise would create jobs for
local people and would lead to an investment in the area;
·
That it was essential to secure the continuation of
the farm and the creation of a new rural enterprise;
·
That the applicant was willing to accept a 106
Agreement on the house;
·
That the Planning Service should seek information
from the applicant in relation to the rural enterprise if the information was
insufficient;
·
That the applicant had contacted Tai Teg on three
occasions but that no response had been received;
·
That there were three options for the Committee to
consider - either approve the application, undertake a site visit or defer in
order to ensure that every source had been followed in relation to TAN 6.
(ch) In response to the above observations, the
Planning Manager noted:
·
In accordance with the requirements of TAN 6, the
need and justification for erecting a house in open countryside had to be
proven;
·
Should the need for a new rural enterprise dwelling
be proven in accordance with TAN 6, that it would be possible for the applicant
to receive permission to locate a chalet on an appropriate site for three years
in the first place in order to have an opportunity to ensure that the
enterprise was viable;
·
The application submitted from the applicant noted
that it was for an agricultural house / new rural enterprise therefore no more
information had been requested. If the
application submitted would have referred specifically to this element then the
Planning Service would have requested further information.
·
That Tai Teg had noted that the applicant had not
contacted them;
·
That the size of the house was a material
consideration with the internal floor area measuring 225m2.
(d) It was proposed and seconded to defer the application in order
to receive more information from the applicant in order to establish whether
the proposal was an agricultural house or a house for a new rural
enterprise.
During
the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:
·
That the size of the house was too large;
·
In fairness, the need to receive information about
the new rural enterprise in order to assess the viability of the development;
·
The applicant was responsible for submitting
information to support the application and the need to follow the agricultural
points system; otherwise it would be a new house in the countryside.
RESOLVED to defer the application in order to
receive more information from the applicant in order to establish whether the
proposal was an agricultural house or a house for a new rural enterprise.
Supporting documents: