Agenda item

The application was introduced by the Officer, who advised that the proposal sought to vary an existing planning permission to remove an agricultural occupancy condition attached to the dwelling.

The Committee was shown the site location and surrounding context, noting that the site was located within the open countryside to the west of Glentham. The existing condition restricting occupancy was presented and explained. Photographs of the dwelling and access arrangements from the A631 were provided for context.

The applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application. It was explained that the dwelling had been constructed as a farmhouse associated with the wider agricultural holding and was not a typical agricultural workers’ dwelling.

It was stated that changes within the agricultural sector had resulted in significantly reduced employment opportunities, meaning that the dwelling was no longer suitable for occupation by a person employed in agriculture as required by the condition. Reference was made to a marketing exercise undertaken over an extended period, which had not resulted in a suitable occupant being identified.

The applicant advised that the property was of a nature and scale that limited its suitability for agricultural occupancy, and that the continued restriction was no longer practical. It was further stated that the removal of the condition would not result in harm, noting the absence of local objection and the established presence of the dwelling.

The Committee was requested to support the removal of the agricultural occupancy condition.

NOTE: Councillor Adam Duguid exited the Council Chamber at 7.48pm.

With no comments to return from the Officer, the Chairman opened to Members of the Committee for debate.

Support was indicated by a Member of the Committee who considered that planning policy should respond to changes within the agricultural sector, noting that buildings no longer required for their original purpose should be capable of alternative use. It was considered that the applicant had demonstrated that the existing restriction was no longer practical, and approval of the application was proposed.

Other Members expressed sympathy with the circumstances outlined by the applicant, particularly in relation to changing agricultural practices. However, concern was raised regarding the need to identify appropriate planning justification to support the removal of the condition, with it noted that decisions must be based on policy.

Further concerns were raised regarding the absence of evidence of a suitable marketing exercise. Clarification was sought regarding the requirements for marketing a dwelling subject to an agricultural occupancy condition, including duration, pricing and demonstration of lack of interest. The Officer advised that a period of marketing would typically be required, supported by evidence of reduced pricing and details of interest received, and confirmed that no such evidence had been submitted in this case.

Concern was also expressed regarding the potential precedent that could arise from the removal of such conditions. The Committee considered whether the application should be deferred to enable the applicant to provide supporting evidence of marketing activity, rather than determining the application in its current form. It was noted that any deferral would require agreement to an extension of time to avoid the risk of an appeal on grounds of non-determination.

With no further comments, upon being put to the vote, the proposal was carried and it was therefore RESOLVED that the application be DEFERRED to enable the submission of further information to evidence the marketing of the dwelling.

NOTE: Councillor Adam Duguid re-entered the Council Chamber at 8.01pm