Agenda item

Temporary siting of mobile home for a period of 3 years to be occupied by the farm manager.

The Planning Officer, Michelle Penman 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 Planning Officer advised that some Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for the temporary siting of mobile home for a period of 3 years to be occupied by the farm manager and was recommended for refusal, for reasons set out in the report.

The Planning Officer noted that consultee responses included no objection from the Highways Section, accepting the short-term, 3-year use. 

She added that Wheatley Hill Parish Council offered support to the application, noting the struggle of the farm manager commuting from Peterlee.  The Planning Officer explained that the Landscape Section noted that they would not support the application on a permanent basis, however, would support a temporary permission, provided some mitigation measures were undertaken.  She noted other statutory consultees had no objections, however, offered some advice in respect of the nearby public right of way.  It was added that no public representations had been received.

The Planning Officer noted that development within the countryside was not permitted, with a few exceptions and that CDP Policy 12 did allow for new rural worker’s dwellings.  It was noted that in this case, there was an existing farmhouse on the site and the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the additional mobile dwelling was needed.  She noted that accordingly, as the application was contrary to NPPF Paragraph 84, and Policies 10 and 12 of the CDP, it was recommended for refusal.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked Local Member, Councillor J Miller, to speak in respect of the application.

Councillor J Miller noted that he would offer his support to the application and had called it to Committee so that Members could determine the application.  He noted that he could not see why the recommendation was for refusal, in respect of one caravan, temporarily, for a farm worker to be able to help secure the farm.  He added if the application was refused, the farm would not have a qualified person on site and noted a recent incident where a number of quad bikes had been racing in the field nearby, causing issues with livestock.  He noted he agreed with the Parish Council in their support of a local job, noting while only a short commute by car, it was problematic by public transport, especially given the very early starts required for farming.

Councillor J Miller noted paragraphs 33 to 35 of the report noted there had been no concerns raised from Officers in terms of the application, and that the Highways Section had noted they would only have concerns if the arrangement was permanent.  He added that paragraph 49 wrongly stated that the existing farmhouse could accommodate any farm worker, however, the property was occupied by an existing tenant.  He noted he felt that it was inappropriate for the Local Authority to suggest that the applicant make a tenant homeless to accommodate a farm worker.

Councillor J Miller reiterated that he fully supported the application and noted he could see no negatives from the application, the site being barely visible from the main road.  He noted a much more intrusive illegal caravan park nearby that had not yet been dealt with.  He asked that Members approve the application.

The Chair thanked Councillor J Miller and asked Local Member, Councillor L Hovvels, to speak in respect of the application.

Councillor L Hovvels noted she felt strongly in respect of the application and had attended Committee to show that support and represent her local residents.  She noted the farm had been in operation for over 70 years and that it was difficult to get a bus to the farm from Peterlee at the times required, if not impossible.  She noted a fishing pond nearby, and in terms of the rural aspect of the site, there had been no issues with this farm in the past.  She noted the issues with farming in general across the wider County and felt it was important that we supported farms in terms of their viability.  She asked the Committee for a common-sense approach, noting that while there was new development at Marley Fields, the house prices would be such that they would not present a viable option.

The Chair thanked Councillor L Hovvels and asked Edward Dinning, Agent on behalf of the applicant, to speak in support of the application.

E Dinning noted that the application had been validated on 17 February 2023, in response to pre-application advice being sought.  He noted that it had taken 11 months for the application to get to Committee for determination.  He explained that the applicant’s husband’s health had deteriorated, and he had been unable to help with the work associated with the farm.  He noted it had been at a critical time in terms of winter and therefore it was necessary for a live-in farm manager.  He noted that the only other alternative would have been to make the farm manager redundant and to close the farm and evict the residents of the farmhouse.

E Dinning noted that NPPF Paragraph 84 stated that development could take place if there was an established need, he added that a livestock farm required a 24-hour presence.  He noted that if the farm manager happened to have a majority share in the farm itself, he would have been permitted to build a house.  He added that CDP Policy 10 supported new buildings, as long as they were of an appropriate size, construction and commensurate with the use.  He added that having a 24-hour presence was also required in terms of preventing vandalism of the site.  He noted that CDP Policy 12(e) referred to permanent dwellings and reiterated the need on site and a lack of other viable options.  He added that the applicant would be happy for a condition to be included with any permission granted, that would require removal of the temporary structure should the farmhouse become available for use within the three-year period. 

E Dinning noted he would dispute the claims that information had not been provided, with an accountant’s letter having been provided. 

He noted that paragraph 83 of the report conceded that the visual harm was not sufficient that it could not be mitigated, and other statutory consultees had equally provided no objections to the proposals.  He noted that if the Committee agreed with the Officer’s recommendation, then they would be required to evict the tenants of the farmhouse, breaking the word given to the tenants by the applicant.

The Chair thanked E Dinning and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor P Jopling noted she had attended the site visit and asked what would happen in three years’ time if the position was the same in terms of requiring a farm manager on site, however, the farmhouse was still occupied.  The Planning Officer noted that the permission, if granted, would lapse after three years, with the applicant having to remove the mobile home, or seek a new planning permission.  Councillor P Jopling noted that if it was recommended for refusal now, would it not be the same case in three years’ time.

Councillor A Surtees asked if there was permitted development rights in terms of such a temporary structure, and that if the application was refused, would there be a circumstance where the applicant could fall back on permitted development rights.  The Principal Planning Officer, Jennifer Jennings noted that there were no permitted development rights in this case, with the conversion of agricultural land to residential.  Councillor A Surtees noted she understood that in terms of Government guidance that if required as a function of the use of the land, then it would be permitted development rights, adding she recalled such use when looking at other applications.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that permission for the erection of a dwelling on the land could not be given via permitted development.

Councillor K Shaw asked if there were any conditions that Planners felt could be applied to make the application permissible.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the temporary nature and reinstatement after were in the application’s favour, however, it was being recommended for refusal on principle, with no need demonstrated or detailed financial information as required by CDP Policy 12.

Councillor J Elmer noted that, as the Agent and Officers had pointed out, Policies 10 and 12 did provide a way to grant permission, though frustratingly there had not been the evidence required presented.  He noted the condition was temporary and asked, as suggested by the Agent, for a condition to move into the farmhouse should it become vacant.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that, should the temporary permission be granted, after three years, the permission would lapse, and any new application would be assessed. 

She noted that if a new tenant occupied the farmhouse, she felt we would be in the same position.  She added she did not think any condition as suggested would meet the tests as outlined in planning policy guidance, if permission were to be granted.

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted the suggestion from Councillor J Elmer, however, he explained that the granting of permission for a period of three years, albeit temporary, was implying that the farmhouse was not available or suitable for that period.  He added he felt it would not be necessary to include such a condition as suggested.

Councillor D Oliver noted he was torn in respect of the application, adding his disappointment in terms of a lack of evidence provided.  He explained that intuitively he felt there was a need for the mobile home and a presence on site and noted his sympathy for the applicant’s situation.

Councillor L Brown noted that the caravan on-site was visually prominent, you could see it from the main road.  She added that should Members be minded to approve the application, would there be a condition as regards landscape mitigation in that respect.  She asked, following the farm manager living on site, whether their presence had impacted in terms of thefts or anti-social behaviour at the site.

The Chair allowed the Agent to respond to the question.  E Dinning noted that the farm manager had only recently been in occupation, therefore it was perhaps too soon to be able to note any impact.  He reiterated that the applicant would be happy for the farm manager to move into the farmhouse if the tenants moved out.  He noted the application was for three years initially, if they knew the farmhouse would be vacant in say six months, they would have sought six months permission.  Councillor L Brown noted that if the current tenants were living rent-free, it may prove difficult to convince them to vacate.

Councillor A Surtees noted that refusal was recommended as there had not been sufficient evidence of a functional need and asked therefore if Members could move for a deferral in order to provide the applicant time to provide such evidence as required, or any slight re-siting of the caravan as required.  She added that she felt there was a case in terms of economic viability, accepting that it had taken 11 months to come before the Committee.  The Planning Officer noted that there had been much discussion back and forth between the Council and the applicant over the 11 months, the applicant had not been forthcoming in respect of the financial information required, that this information had not been brought forward was one of the reasons why the application had been scheduled for determination by the Committee.

Councillor E Peeke noted the farmhouse was on land for use by the farmer and farm manager, adding she felt that was what should be used.

Councillor D McKenna noted he had reflected upon the comments from the Local Members and noted that their knowledge of the area should be taken into account, adding he felt if the permission was only temporary for three years, he would agree to permission being granted.

Councillor K Shaw noted he understood the position of the Planning Officers, the time taken over the 11 months to get to Committee and the functional element having not been demonstrated.  He asked if there was any benefit of deferral of the application to get such information, and if it was not forthcoming, then the Committee would be in the same position in terms of a refusal recommendation.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that may be a question to pose to the applicant and their Agent.  He added that if they could provide additional information then there could be reason for deferral, however, if all information had been provided, there would be no real reason to defer.

The Chair allowed the Agent to respond.  E Dinning noted that all financial information had been provided, the farm had operated for over 70 years and therefore must be viable, else it would have closed down.  He added that the applicant’s accountant had noted the business was viable and that three years’ worth of back accounts had been requested, that only being a requirement for new businesses, not existing businesses.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that the Agent had indicated that they had provided all the information they felt was required and therefore there did not appear to be any benefit in deferral of the application.

Councillor L Brown moved that the application be refused as per the Officer’s recommendation, she was seconded by Councillor E Peeke and upon a vote being taken, it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED as per the reasons set out within the report.

Councillors D McKenna and I Roberts left the meeting at 12.10pm