Agenda item

Resubmission of DM/22/03077/FPA for the erection of one permanent rural equine workers dwelling.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer that was a resubmission of DM/22/03077/FPA for the erection of one permanent rural equine workers dwelling at High Green Farm, Binchester, Bishop Auckland, DL14 8AU (for copy see file of minutes). 

G Spurgeon, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation that included site photographs, a site location plan and proposed elevation plans. A site visit had taken place prior to the Committee meeting to enable Members to assess the impact of the proposed development and the relationship with their surroundings. He explained that the planning application sought full planning permission for the erection of a single storey 3 bedroomed rural workers dwelling that would be sited in a similar position to the existing static caravan that had temporary approval for 3 years that had now lapsed. The applicant ran an American miniature horse stud business at the Farm since 2019, prior to which he had kept sheep, cattle and poultry.  The request for a permanent workers dwelling was for security purposes and the welfare of the animals when foaling. Officers deemed it unnecessary to have a permanent dwelling on site and noted there was alternative accommodation in a nearby village that was 3 minutes away to enable a response to emergencies.  Therefore the application was contrary to policies 10 and 12 of the Durham County Plan and the officer recommendation was to refuse the application.

Councillor P Molloy, local Councillor addressed the committee in support of the application who had visited the site on numerous occasions and spoken to Mr Green who had explained that he ran a viable miniature horse breeding business since 2019.  Horses cost £10,000 each that were high maintenance with medical and breeding that required a presence on site 24 hours a day, 7 days per week especially around foaling due to the risk of red bag birth.  There would be a poor outcome if someone was not there to cut open the placenta to bring the foal out quickly that was required to be done in 3 minutes.  There had been 3 red bag births in 2023.  This application referenced policy 10 and 12 but due to the nature of the business the primary concern was the welfare of the animals and he requested for the planning application to be heard and reject the planning officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

Mrs J Green, applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application and explained that her and her husband ran a viable stud business since 2019.  The planning officer had stated that no permanent accommodation was required as the business could still be run off site.  She stressed that the planning officer had a lack of practical understanding of the business as this was not a 9-5pm job and her husband worked all the hours he could which was made possible by the temporary static caravan. It was invaluable for a permanent or temporary accommodation to be on site which had been the case for the last 4 years that had allowed the business to grow and develop. The operation of the business would not be practical, reliable or sustainable if they were based off site as any disturbance would need to be addressed immediately.  There was a high value on the mares, stallions and foals that were critical to the business success.  The installation of CCTV as suggested by the planning officer would be impractical as monitoring this during the night would make for an even longer working day.  In 2019 it was recognised that there was a need for the highest welfare to the mares and foals after birth.  She commented that they had tried to get a planning application submitted for a permanent workers dwelling but the planning case officer recommended that the policy would not support it.  They challenged it as they believed that they had provided all the evidence required.  She asked Members if they would be minded to overturn the officer’s recommendation as without the dwelling they could not continue to run a successful business and the welfare of the horses would not be met.  She noted it would also be detrimental to other businesses that they supported like vets, trainers, fertilizers and she didn’t want their livelihood also taken away.

The Chair opened up the meeting for questions.

Councillor E Adam asked the applicant if when the business model for High Green Farm had been developed if they had thought at the time there would be a need for a permanent dwelling on site and why was there was a need for a large 3 bedroom property supposedly for workers.

Mr B Green responded that there was a need for a large 3 bedroom property to accommodate friends and family, some of whom were disabled as they wanted to make provisions for them to live there later on in life.

Councillor E Adam asked if this large property had been factored into the business model when it was set.

Mr B Green answered Councillor E Adam that they wanted a property on site as there was a need to be on the site 24 hours 7 days per week.  When the business model was prepared they didn’t know what size of property they would need.

Councillor L Maddison knew the farm and the area.  She asked if there had been an increase in business since the planning application for a change of use in September 2019 to an equestrian stud business had been submitted and the temporary approval for 3 years for a caravan to be placed on site had been granted.

Mr B Green confirmed that there had been an increase in business.  The fact that they were on site 24 hours a day, 7 days per week meant they had not lost any foals and there had been no issues with security.  Prior to living on site there has been some thefts and the year before they had 10 mares foaling and they had lost 8.

Councillor J Quinn asked since they had been living on site temporarily for 3 years that if the planning application was refused where would they live.

Mr B Green stated that they had nowhere to go if the planning application was refused.

The Chair opened up the meeting for debate.

Councillor G Richardson advised that he had attended the site visit and had listened to the presentation given by the officer that had given valid points however as a farmer himself he knew of the business needs to have the site occupied 24 hours a day 7 days a week which had been explained by the applicant.  He noted that he himself was a few days from lambing season but a few has come early and as he was on site he was there to look after them.  He acknowledged that you still got deaths which could not be helped.  He had a sympathetic view and was in favour of supporting animal welfare in whatever shape it took.

Councillor S Quinn was an animal lover and knew people did what they could for their animals. She emphasised with the applicant and although the property was a little remote the applicant had been living out of a caravan for some time to care for the animals.  She supported the application and disagreed with officer recommendation to refuse the application.

Councillor L Maddison knew the area and where the property would be located. It was mentioned that the applicant could live in a near by village and still tend to the horses without being on site but she felt that Middlestone Moore and Byers Green were still a good distance away.  She noted that the applicant had increased his business because of he had been temporarily housed on site of which planning had approved.  She felt that the health of the animals was essential and also the health of other peoples animals when on site when they were brought to stud so was important to have someone on site.  She was in support to refuse officer recommendation and approve the application. 

Councillor A Savory had listened to what had been said and prior to having someone on site 8 foals had been lost compared to none being lost whilst someone was living on site. She felt that if there was no one on site crime would occur which would be detrimental to a viable business and supported the application to be approved.

Councillor J Quinn inclined to agree that it was important to be on site.  He appreciated what officers had presented that the applicant could live at a nearest location off site but he felt that the timings to get there in an emergency were not accurate as it would take time for the applicant to get ready and get there.

Councillor E Adam had listened to what Members had said on how the business was run with a need to have someone on site on a permanent basis.  He felt that the applicant had not given a sufficient answer when asked about the property in relation to the business model even though they had sold their property in 2021 and could have settled in a suitable property in a village nearby.  He acknowledged that he was not an expert in foaling but thought that many of the births would take place during the day.  He fully appreciated the needs of the business but struggled with the application as it conflicted with policy 12.

Councillor S Quinn mentioned that there were planning applications to extend houses near the farm that could propose issues as there was an increase in rural crime.  She moved the application to go against officer recommendation and approve the application.

Councillor L Maddison seconded the application to be approved.

Councillor M Stead agreed with some of the points raised by Councillor E Adam regarding the conflict in policies and asked how many foals were born in a specific time frame.

Mr B Green stated that this year he had 18 mares in foal and to be on site would save lives.  He noted that foals were mainly born at night as mares felt protected under the cover of night to give birth.

Councillor M Stead calculated the number of foals born to be 1.5 a month and queried if it was then necessary to have a permanent property on site.

Councillor J Quinn added that foals were not born all year round only within 9 months of the year so there would be times when more foals would be born than others.

Councillor G Richardson stated that numbers did not come into it as even if only 1 foal was born there was a need for someone to be on site.  Foals were born during the night and was in support of the application not the refusal.

Councillor D Brown had also listened to all the comments made and had attended the site visit.  He also had livestock of 200 cows and used modern technology to look after them.  He felt that the applicant was not running a business but a hobby. The temporary approval for the static caravan for 3 years had elapsed and he queried why it had taken so long to submit a new planning application.  He noted that the previous business had dealt with cattle, sheep and poultry that would have required to be recorded with passports and again the ponies would also need passports so security would not come into it.  The report did not mention any veterinary attention and queried the welfare of the foaling as mares had foals on Dart Moor in the wild without support.  He commented that there had been other planning applications similar that had been refused and on appeal inspectors were also inclined on refusal.  He could not see how the committee could break precedent.  He supported the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

Councillor J Quinn respectively disagreed with Councillor D Brown’s opinion that this was a hobby and not a business as this generated the main source of income for the applicant.

L Ackermann, Legal Officer (Planning and Highways)reminded Members that if they proposed to approve the application and go against officer’s recommendation there would be a requirement for delegated authority for officers to request specific conditions that would be linked to the business.

Councillor E Adam reiterated that legal advice was important to create conditions to be set if the decision went against policies relating to developments in the country.

Upon a vote being taken it was:

Resolved:

That the planning application be APPROVED subject to delegated authority for further conditions to be added.