Agenda item

Minutes:

Members considered application number 140150, an application for 1no. agricultural workers’ dwelling at land at South Carr, Brandywharf Road, Waddingham DN21 4SW.

 

There was no officer update to the item from the printed report.

 

The first speaker to the application was the applicant, Mrs Tutty.  She raised the following points:

 

·         The Environment agency had raised no concerns to the application, and there were no concerns from neighbours;

·         A health and safety representative felt the need for an on-site presence due to the machinery housed there;

·         Mr Tutty worked long hours on the farm and would benefit from being on site, rather than commuting for four miles, which was the current arrangement;

·         Theft was a huge worry and security was paramount.  Anyone watching the premises would know that it warranted further protection;

·         The applicant’s parents used to be a full-time part of the farm; however health and age issues have meant that their role was now diminished;

·         The applicant’s mother would require more care on an ongoing basis;

·         Mrs Tutty was taking a more active role in the farm, but also had childcare to think about.  Her child could not realistically be brought onto the farm whilst both parents were working;

·         Family run businesses were on the demise.  The legacy of this farm had been handed down over several generations.  Several self-employed contractors had been taken on to help with the farm, which demonstrated that it was performing well;

·         Lincolnshire was one of the top producers of food, and it was a key location for sugar beet.  There were a few tractor drivers on site, who would take time off; however Mr Tutty was largely unable to take any time off due to his ‘hands-on’ role on the farm;

·         In the future, the Tuttys’ son will work on the land and would take over the contracting business;

·         The importance of having the family on-site was stressed.

 

The final speaker to the application was Councillor Jeff Summers, ward member for Waddingham and Spital.  He raised the following points:

 

·         Farming contracts lasted for several years; this farm specialised in sugar beet.  This involved using very large and expensive machines, with a value of   well over £250,000;

·         Lincolnshire Police had admitted that they could not adequately police the rural countryside.  Businesses needed to be able to protect their assets;

·         The business had the need to employ local people;

·         The proposed site was in Flood Zone 3 (as defined by the Environment Agency as the highest risk of flooding); however this could be mitigated by a damp proofing course;

·         This would be a family house with office space, and nothing more;

·         Policy LP1 of the CLLP had been met as there was no adverse impact arising from the development.  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) would not restrict the development;

·         Policy LP5 of the CLLP was referenced; the application had arisen because of the success of a young entrepreneur.  The site employed 15 staff, and did not conflict with neighbouring land uses.  In addition, it would not impact unacceptably on the local strategic highway network;

·         Policy LP10 of the CLLP was met as the development would meet the needs of the family by reducing the need for members of the family to commute from outside of the farm.  With 15 staff to manage, it was important for the farm owner to work and live at a central point;

·         Policy LP55 was addressed as the proposal went much further in terms of development.  The proposal would be close by to the owner’s occupation, which would allow them to mobilise staff, minimise cost and be on hand instantly to repair faults.  The need for the dwelling had been justified, it was in an appropriate location, was scaled correctly and was appropriate to the business need.  It would also aid with the protection of agricultural land.

 

The Planning Manager (Development Management) responded to some of the points raised by the public speakers:

 

·         There were two policy conflicts in play here between both national planning policy and West Lindsey planning policy.  The NPPF stipulated that policies and decisions should avoid creating isolated homes unless there was an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at the location.  This was an ‘essential’ rather than a ‘desirable’ test;

·         Was there an essential need?  Security alone was not a justification.  There were already dwellings located on and adjacent to the site.  Therefore based on this and other points, officers feel that the essential need test had not been met;

·         Dwellings should not be located within Flood Zone 3 unless there was no sequentially preferable alternative.

 

Members then provided comment on the application, after seeking guidance from Planning Officers:

 

·         Farming was a very lonely and difficult occupation; it was important for farm owners to be able to protect their businesses;

·         In the opinion of officers, the single dwelling did not meet LP14 of the CLLP because of the flood risk.  There were indeed two dwellings already on the site, but they predated the flooding policy change of 2007.  The presence of those existing buildings did not mean that a further dwelling would meet the flood risk test;

·         Thieves were getting more canny, and this could be soul destroying for the farm owners;

·         Mobile homes in the countryside would be subject to the same test as permanent dwellings, i.e. the test would still be whether the development was essential;

·         The sequential test was a planning policy.  The Environment Agency would not engage with this as they were only a flood authority.  They would suggest mitigation if the sequential test had been met; planning officers did not feel that it had been met on this occasion;

·         If it was considered that there was an essential need for a new dwelling on the site, then the flood risk sequential test would also be met as the entire site was in Flood Zone 3 and there would be no areas within the site at a lower risk of flooding;

·         Although the applicant was living off site, it was not that far away.  Had the distance been greater it may have been a different matter.

 

Following this discussion, the officer recommendation to refuse permission was moved and seconded, and put to the vote.  Following the vote, the decision to refuse was not upheld.

 

Therefore the Committee considered an alternate proposal, which was moved and seconded which was to grant permission using LP55(d) of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan as the basis for the decision.  The justification was the need to have someone on the farm site at all times.  Planning officers advised that conditions could be settled following a successful vote.

 

Following the vote, the application was GRANTED subject to officers formulating conditions in the following areas:

 

·         Time of commencement;

·         Drainage;

·         Flood risk mitigation;

·         Agricultural workers standard conditions.

 

 

Supporting documents: