Agenda item

The Chairman introduced the final application of the evening and invited the Officer to present.

The Committee was advised that two planning applications had been presented concerning the Ten Acres Café site, situated in open countryside within the wider parish of Osgodby and designated as an Area of Great Landscape Value.

It was explained that both applications had sought the removal of occupancy conditions attached to previous planning permissions. The first application related to Condition 2 of permission 96/P/0805, which had restricted the occupancy of an annex to individuals employed or last employed in the operation of Ten Acres Café and the associated haulage company. The second application concerned Condition 3 of permission W75/872/91, which had limited the occupancy of the main dwelling to individuals employed in the operation of Ten Acres Café and the operation of three heavy goods vehicles.

The Committee had been informed that both dwellings had originally been permitted solely on the basis of their functional connection to the café and haulage operations. It was noted that the removal of these conditions would result in unrestricted residential use, which would be contrary to both local and national planning policy that seeks to prevent unjustified residential development in the countryside.

The Officer raised concerns regarding the potential impact on residential amenity and the character of the designated landscape area. The Officer had recommended that both applications be refused.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for their comments and invited the only registered speaker on this application, Mr Cook, as agent to address the Committee.

Mr Cook addressed the Committee in objection to the officer’s recommendation for refusal of applications WL/2025/00460 and WL/2025/00462. He spoke on behalf of the applicant.

He stated that the applicant was disappointed with the recommendation for refusal, particularly in light of the absence of objections to the proposals. Reference was made to planning law, which required decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It was asserted that such material considerations had not been fully taken into account.

Mr Cook disputed the officer’s view that the proposals would result in unacceptable development in open countryside, stating that no new development was proposed and that both the dwelling and café were existing and established. He emphasised that no physical alterations were intended.

The Committee was informed that the café required investment to secure its long-term future and viability. It was explained that the current arrangements, whereby both properties were considered commercial by lenders, resulted in borrowing costs that rendered investment unviable. Separation of the properties was therefore sought to enable funding to be released.

The speaker further stated that the applicant intended to lease the café to a suitable individual or organisation to ensure its continued operation, while retaining ownership. The café was described as a valued community asset, serving as a social hub and providing meals to local residents, including the elderly.

Mr Cook argued that the existing occupancy conditions restricted flexibility and limited opportunities for improvement. Financial information had been submitted to the case officer in support of this position. It was suggested that the conditions had served their purpose and that there were no challenging reasons preventing approval. The Committee was asked to support the applications.

Attention was drawn to the claim that the applicant could reside in the dwelling regardless of the café’s operation, and that the condition could be circumvented by nominal employment arrangements. It was argued that greater harm would result from refusal of the applications, placing the café’s future at risk.

Mr Cook concluded by stating that the applicant would be agreeable to suitably worded conditions or a legal agreement and urged Members to support the proposals.

The Chairman thanked Mr Cook for his comments and with no further registered speakers, and no response form Officers, he opened the debate and noted that no representations had been received from the Ward Member, Parish Council, or local residents.

A Member of the Committee expressed concern regarding the rationale for refusal, stating that the Committee should be supporting local businesses. It was suggested that failure to approve the applications would likely result in the closure of the café and the creation of a vacant property.

Two points were raised by another Member of the Committee. Firstly, a question was directed to Officers regarding the enforceability of the occupancy condition, referencing the agent’s suggestion that it could be circumvented through a zero-hours contract. It was stated that if the condition could be subverted in this way, it would not be enforceable. Secondly, concern was expressed regarding the financial implications, noting that failure to resolve the matter could result in another derelict property in the countryside, which was considered particularly problematic given the site’s location within the Lincolnshire Gateway Business Park. Reference was also made to HGV parking, with the view that any future buyer would be aware of the site’s operational context.

The Development Management Team Manager responded that the conditions were as displayed and did not believe they could be subverted in the manner suggested. Comparisons were drawn with standard wording used for agricultural worker conditions. It was noted that the dwelling had been granted approximately 30 years ago, and concern was expressed regarding the potential for substandard arrangements. Reference was made to the distinction between residential and commercial properties when linked or separated. It was advised that the applicant should undertake further work and consider submitting a legal agreement to demonstrate how ownership of the café would be retained.

A Member of the Committee queried the implications of zero-hours contracts in relation to the occupancy condition, asking whether such an arrangement would satisfy the condition if someone were to move into the dwelling under those terms.

The Legal Advisor agreed with the Development Management Team Manager, stating that the condition had been written prior to the existence of zero-hours contracts and that a negative view would likely be taken of any attempt to circumvent it. However, it was noted that this was a matter of opinion and not fact, and that further research into employment law would be required.

A Member of the Committee expressed concern that if the café operator resided elsewhere and the dwelling remained vacant, it would be detrimental. It was suggested that the best way forward would be for the applicant to return with a legal agreement.

A proposal for a site visit was moved and duly seconded. Subsequently, a second proposal seeking deferral of the item was tabled. The proposal for a site visit was considered first. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was lost with three Members voting in favour and four voting against.

During the debate, reference was made to the Planning Committee Code of Practice in relation to site visits. A Member of the Committee stated that they were familiar with the location and did not consider a site visit to be necessary. However, Section ‘K’ of the Code of Practice was quoted, prompting further discussion.

NOTE: Councillor Dobbie exited the meeting at 8.06pm and entered at 8.07pm. 

It was requested that the Code of Practice be reviewed as a matter of urgency to ensure clarity and consistency, particularly in circumstances where Members may feel sufficiently informed without the need for a formal site visit.

The proposal for deferral was then considered. Having been seconded and voted upon, it was

RESOLVED that the application be deferred to allow further negotiation with applicant to secure a legal agreement and/or alternatively worded condition to enable cafe owner to occupy the dwelling