Agenda item

DM/18/03882/OUT - Howarth Raw Timber & Logs, Edderacres Plantation, Castle Eden, TS27 4TF

Outline Planning Permission for a rural workers dwelling with all matters reserved.

Minutes:

The Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was an outline planning permission for a rural-workers dwelling with all matters reserved and was recommended for refusal.

 

The Senior Planning Officer asked Members to note the extent of the applicants’ land ownership and area which was utilised for their timber supply business and an indicative site layout, though all matters were reserved.  He noted that there had been no objections from statutory or internal consultees, subject to conditions and a financial contribution in relation to the heritage coast. 

The Committee were informed that a 36 signature in support of the application had been received, with support also received from Natural England, custodian of the nearby Castle Eden Dene.  It was noted issues raised included the development helping in terms of reducing anti-social behaviour, poaching, vehicle movements and in terms of improved health and safety in relation to the forestry work.  Those in support had also noted there had been a previous structure within the application site, an old mill.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that in planning terms the location was considered remote and that paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) applied, noting there was a requirement for special circumstances for such a rural worker’s dwelling.  He noted the test would look at functional need and financial viability.

 

It was explained the applicant had felt in order to be able to raise the alarm should an accident occur at the site a property was required at the location.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that the applicant also cited improved animal welfare and a deterrent against anti-social behaviour and crime as additional benefits.  Members noted that when equipment had previously been kept on the site it had been vandalised and stolen and when CCTV equipment had been placed on site it too had been stolen.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that on balance when looking at the test in paragraph 79 of the NPPF it was not felt that there was justification for a full-time presence at the site on functional need.

 

The Senior Planning Officer explained that when looking at three years of financial records provided by the applicant there had been significant fluctuations over that period.  He added that he had been provided with updated information as regards the timing of works, with work scheduled in June 2019 to have a significant impact upon profitability.  It was noted that finalised audited accounts had yet to be produced and therefore limited weight could be afforded to this.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that therefore it was not felt that the financial viability had been demonstrated as per the test in paragraph 79 of the NPPF.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted in other respects the application would be acceptable, subject to conditions and a s106 legal agreement, however, as it was not felt to meet the functional or financial test as set out in paragraph 79 of the NPPF, the recommendation was for refusal.

 

Councillor J Robinson left the meeting at 1.38pm

 

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked the Committee Services Officer to read out a statement on behalf of an adjacent Division Member, Councillor L Pounder in support of the application, noting her fellow divisional Member, Councillor R Crute supported the statement.

“Thank you for reading out my statement, I wish I was present at the Committee to express to you all how strongly I feel about supporting this application, however I am currently out of the country”.

 

“Edderacres is a site on which stood Shotton Mill, a workers house and associated buildings, parts of buildings remain on the site.  It is previously developed land which has been used for commercial purposes.  The planning application before you is from Mr and Mrs Howarth, a local couple, with a good business they intend to grow, which they cannot do without a presence on the site. 

 

Mr and Mrs Howarth are asking for support to build a modest three bedroom home next to Castledene Caravan Park to allow the proper functioning of their business.

 

Forestry is an unusual business but one which is benefitting the area both in terms of economy and environmentally.  Natural England are supporting the application as they know Mr and Mrs Howarth and know that what they are doing supports their aims and is a positive benefit to the area.  A petition of support has also been submitted, and no objections have been received again showing that this is a good scheme.

 

The National Planning Policy Framework states that to support an application in the rural area there should be an essential need for a rural worker, to live permanently at their place of work in the countryside.  Mr and Mrs Howarth have provided robust evidence to demonstrate that there is a need for someone to be onsite permanently, this is a dangerous business with high safety risks a presence on site will support the proper functioning of the business.  A property will deter the current antisocial behaviour which is currently experienced.

 

The business has been financially stable for over three years and has made profit every year it has operated, it’s not going to make millions, but it is a sustainable business.  

 

There is a need for the functioning of the business to have an onsite presence, and the location of the site means it will not be visually obtrusive.  All of these points mean that the application complies with the emerging Local Plan and the currently adopted Easington District Local Plan – so we should support it.

 

The business has requests for more timber, from another local business, however currently there is no way to meet demand as Mr and Mrs Howarth cannot put a storage shed on the site as previous buildings have been burnt down and CCTV stolen without someone being on the site permanently.

 

I implore you all to support this sustainable local business which in turn supports other local businesses and approve this application.

 

Thank you.”

 

The Chair thanked the Committee Services Officer and asked Local Member, Councillor E Huntington to speak in support of the application.

 

Councillor E Huntington thanked the Chair and noted that on the basis of all of the comments from supporters of the application, and the Officer’s report she wondered why the application was before Committee.  She noted Mr and Mrs Howarth ran an excellent business, with the application representing their attempt to help ensure the business could progress and meet demand.

 

Councillor E Huntington noted that with the Howarth’s working this area of land it had reduced the incidents of anti-social behaviour and drug misuse in the area.  She added they had a caravan on site, this had been burnt out, they had installed CCTV, this had been stolen.  She noted when she had visited the site, it was well maintained, with ecology that would be protected, consistent with such an ancient forest.  Councillor E Huntington noted the excellent relationship with and support received from Mr J Davies from Natural England, working at the nearby Castle Eden Dene.  She added that the Forestry Commission were also very complimentary in their comments for Mr and Mrs Howarth’s business and practices.

 

Councillor E Huntington noted she felt the business would help ensure the sustainability of the landscape for future generations and while the Planning Officer had not seen this, she felt the business could go forward successfully if permission was granted.  She reiterated that Mr M Outhwaite of the Forestry Commission had noted the business was sound and protected ecology.  Councillor E Huntington added that Mr and Mrs Howarth had invested money in vehicles and machinery, looking to offer chipping in the future.  She added their desire for a barn to store equipment and materials on site was not possible if there was not a property on site in order to protect them from vandalism and theft.  Councillor E Huntington noted that there was increasing demand from other local businesses for their materials and the three-bed property proposed was a modest home. 

 

Councillor E Huntington noted the site had previously been developed, with an old mill, and the access was the route of the “old A19” prior to the new dual-carriageway route.  She added she felt that the proposed development was exciting and would help the forest and, again while Planning Officers doubted the sustainability of the business, she felt that the knowledge, skill and commitment of the applicants would help sustain the forest for generations to come.

 

Councillor E Huntington reiterated her support for the application and noted it was the type of business and application we should all be supporting and asked what message would be sent if these types of ideas were stamped out, concluding that the County needed more beacons like this business, which could in the future provide employment for people from our area.

The Chair thanked Councillor E Huntington and asked Mrs Chris Pipe, representing the Applicant and Mrs Howarth, the applicant, to speak in support of the application.

 

Mrs C Pipe thanked the Chair and noted her clients, Mr and Mrs Howarth, had developed a sustainable business which they wished to grow for the future and the proposed development would help them to be able to achieve this.  She reiterated the comments made by others as regards the previous development at the site, namely Old Shotton Mill, which had included stables and an associated workers house, while demolished, there were many remnants on site and established that the location was one that had historically been a place to live and work.

 

Mrs C Pipe explained that as well as the 36-signature petition in support of the application, there had been support from three Local Councillors, the Forestry Commission and Natural England, highlighting the local demand, and the benefits to the site in terms of biodiversity and reducing anti-social behaviour.  She added there had been no objections from statutory or internal consultees. 

 

Mrs C Pipe continued by noting that the NPPF allowed for such developments if there was a need for such development.  She added that the definition of financially viable was for a competent person to be able to have sufficient livelihood and the applicant would have the ability to do so.  She added that he nature of the work was similar to agriculture in the sense that the profits were linked to “harvests” and therefore providing a wage of just over £22,000 on average, not factoring in increases from additional business that was available.  Mrs C Pipe added that her clients were happy with the s106 contribution figures that were mentioned within the report.

 

Mrs J Howarth thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak and noted that having a home on the site would allow for profits to rise, cutting down on travel time and costs, but also by having the property on site would mean that containers of materials would be safe, and equipment would also be able to be protected.  She explained that it was a Catch-22 situation, without being on-site to protect assets it would not be possible to invest further to help maintain and grow the business.  She added the on-site presence would help to stamp out anti-social behaviour, reiterating that CCTV equipment had not proved to be a deterrent, itself being stolen.

 

Mrs J Howarth noted increased demand from the local Horns Garden Centre for logs and being able to chip on site would help support other arboricultural businesses in the area.  She reiterated that their forward plan had the support of the Forestry Commission and Natural England. 

She concluded by noting that for safety, with mobile signals in the area poor, a property on the site would enable the alarm to be raised should an accident occur.

 

The Chair thanked Mrs C Pipe and Mrs J Howarth and asked Members of the Committee for their comments and questions.

 

Councillor J Shuttleworth noted that over the years he had seen many planning applications where refusal had been recommended, with the location having not been deemed as sustainable.  He noted the comments from speakers and when looking at the evidence of the site having previously been developed and the support from Local Members he felt the application should be supported and moved that it be approved.

 

The Chair asked if the Senior Planning Officer could clarify some of the points raised by speakers and Councillor J Shuttleworth.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that looking at historic maps of the area, the mill on the site was listed in 1898 on the Ordnance Survey map, set out as “disused” on the 1923 map, and removed from the map by the 1951 edition.  Accordingly, while the site had previously been used, the last reference was 1923 as disused.  In terms of the applicant’s management of the site, his techniques were not in question, it was that Officers felt that when judging against the NPPF principles of requiring someone to live on site, neither the functional or financial justification were met.

 

The Chair allowed Mrs C Pipe to clarify a point in relation to previous development. 

 

Mrs C Pipe noted that while the previous use was historic, there was photographic evidence, and Members would have seen on their site visit, remnants of the old mill at the site.  She noted that the NPPF identified that if remnants were on site the land was classified as previously developed land.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that previously developed land had an element of judgement, taking into account the extent to which the land had returned to nature.  He added that in this case whether the site is previously developed or brownfield land was not the determinative issue, rather that the Planning Officer had not felt the functional or financial tests in relation to paragraph 79 of the NPPF had been satisfied.

 

Councillor R Manchester noted he felt that he had read sufficient functional requirement for the application within the report, then with more support from the speakers.  He added he felt that the case had been met and noted that paragraphs 57 and 60 of the Officer’s report both noted that the reasons of improved health and safety and improved security and reduced anti-social behaviour alone did not justify a rural-workers dwelling.  Councillor R Manchester noted if there were these two reasons, amongst other, then in fact they were not alone and therefore there was a functional need for a dwelling to support the business.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that the view taken had been that collectively the reasons cited did not warrant a rural-worker’s dwelling on the site.

 

Councillor M Davinson noted he would second the approval of the application, agreeing with the comments from Councillors J Shuttleworth and R Manchester, meeting the functional need in terms of health and safety and preventing thefts and anti-social behaviour.  Councillor J Shuttleworth reiterated that he felt it had been established that the land had previously been developed and the application would also help to get rid of anti-social behaviour in the area.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development asked if Members could amplify their reasons in terms of meeting the functional test.

 

Councillor R Manchester noted he felt that the health and safety aspect was very important, with the ability to raise the alarm via family on-site as a major benefit.  He added that in terms of anti-social behaviour, he noted that Natural England had supported the application, and cited this aspect as a concern that could be addressed by the positive determination of the application.  Councillor R Manchester added that being on-site to deter and prevent theft would provide a massive increase to the viability of the business.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that if Members were minded to approve the application it would need the usual suite of conditions and a s106 agreement as mentioned within the report.  He asked if those proposing and seconding the application would wish for those to be delegated to Officers.  Councillor M Davinson noted delegated to Officers, in consultation with the Chair or Vice-Chair of the Committee.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to a s106 planning obligation to secure a payment of £756.61 for Heritage Coast mitigation and a suite of conditions the details of which to be delegated to the Planning Officer, in consultation with the Chair of the Committee.

 

Supporting documents: