Agenda item

The Officer reminded Members that the application had previously been considered by the Planning Committee and deferred to allow further discussions to take place with the applicant and agent regarding the marketing exercise undertaken in support of the application.

Members were advised that the application sought the removal of an agricultural occupancy condition from the dwelling at Highfield Cliff Farm, Glentham.

An update was provided in respect of additional information received on 14 July 2026. The applicant had advised that nearby farms had been approached to ascertain whether there was any interest in the property. However, no supporting evidence had been submitted to substantiate this claim. Members were further advised that the property had since been advertised through Perkins George Mawer & Co. at an asking price of £420,000, representing a 30% reduction to reflect the agricultural occupancy restriction, and that a marketing board had been erected at the site entrance on the A631.

The Officer presented the site location plan and photographs of the dwelling and surrounding area, demonstrating its location within the open countryside. Members were also shown details of the existing agricultural occupancy condition and the marketing information submitted in support of the application.

The Chairman then invited the applicant's representative to address the Committee. The agent addressed the Committee in support of the application. It was acknowledged that the marketing undertaken to date may not have fully satisfied the Council's expectations; however, it was contended that the occupancy condition relied upon the term "local", which was not specifically defined within the condition. The agent argued that the meaning of "local" was a matter of interpretation and that the marketing requirements should be considered in that context.

The Committee was advised that the property had been marketed locally through an estate agent for a period of nine months and that a marketing board had been displayed at the site, albeit intermittently due to concerns regarding rural crime and the security of the wider farming operation. It was further stated that wider marketing had been undertaken but had generated no interest from qualifying purchasers.

The agent submitted that the dwelling was beyond the financial reach of most agricultural workers, even at a reduced price, and advised that the property had not originally been constructed as a farm worker's dwelling. It was further explained that changes in farming practices meant there was no longer a requirement for an employee to occupy the property and that the dwelling had remained vacant for several months.

Concern was expressed that the ongoing vacancy of the property increased the risk of crime and vandalism. The agent also highlighted the property's proximity to Glentham and referred to recent residential development within the village.

In conclusion, the Committee was asked to support the removal of the agricultural occupancy condition and approve the application.

The Officer advised that the application related to a dwelling constructed in an isolated countryside location where policy would not ordinarily support residential development. As such, the key consideration for Members was whether sufficient evidence had been provided to demonstrate that the property could not reasonably be sold subject to the existing occupancy restriction. The Officer further clarified that the dwelling had originally been granted planning permission as accommodation for an agricultural worker and the condition remained relevant in planning terms.

In opening the debate, the Vice-Chairman expressed disappointment that the additional information requested by the Committee had not been fully provided. Concern was expressed that insufficient evidence had been submitted to demonstrate that the property had been effectively marketed, particularly through online channels. It was noted that Members had requested additional information regarding the marketing exercise, however no supporting evidence had been provided to demonstrate the extent of the marketing undertaken or enquiries received.

A Member of the Committee acknowledged the concerns raised regarding the marketing exercise but also reflected on changes within the agricultural industry and questioned whether any further marketing would realistically result in a purchaser capable of satisfying the occupancy restriction. It was suggested that the ongoing vacancy of the dwelling could result in deterioration of the property and increase the risk of criminal activity.

In response, the Officer advised that the application before the Committee was made under Section 73 to vary or remove an existing planning condition. Members were advised that they could refuse the application, remove the condition entirely or vary it. The Officer noted that, whilst the applicant had raised concerns regarding the use of the word "local" within the condition, insufficient evidence had been submitted to demonstrate that there was no demand for the dwelling from a qualifying occupier. The Officer reiterated that additional information had been requested following the previous meeting, however the evidence sought by the Committee had not been provided.

During consideration of the application, the Chairman declared a non-pecuniary interest on behalf of all Members of the Planning Committee, as the applicant was known to Members. It was confirmed that Members would consider the application with an open mind.

A Member of the Committee sought clarification regarding the interpretation of the term "local" within the occupancy condition and raised the potential implications of Local Government Reorganisation on any geographical definition. In response, the Officer advised that, should the Committee be minded to vary the condition, the preferred approach would be to remove the word "local" altogether whilst retaining the agricultural occupancy restriction.

A Member of the Committee then proposed that, rather than removing the occupancy restriction entirely, the condition be varied by removing the word "local". The proposal was seconded.

During discussion of the motion, Members were advised that such an amendment would allow the property to be marketed more widely whilst still retaining an agricultural occupancy restriction. The Chairman noted that, should the amended condition subsequently prove ineffective, it would remain open to the applicant to submit a further application in the future.

The Officer further advised that, should the Committee resolve to vary the condition, reference to agriculture should also be updated to reflect the definition contained within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 rather than the earlier legislative reference currently cited within the condition. The proposer confirmed agreement with the suggested amendment.

Upon being put to the vote, it was agreed that permission be GRANTED subject to the variation of condition 1 as follows:

1.The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed, prior to retirement, in agriculture as defined in Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or in forestry or a dependant of such person residing with them (but including a widow or widower of such a person).

Reason: The site is in a rural area where it is the policy of the district planning authority, in the interests of safeguarding the rural character and appearance of the area, not to permit development unless it is required to meet an agricultural need