Meeting documents

Application Proposal: Formation of vehicular access track and erection of agricultural building

The Planning Officer introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda.  There were no updates to the report.  The key considerations were agricultural need/justification for the building and hardstanding and landscape impact. The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for refusal.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer confirmed that:

·         The proposed area of land was quite significant and that policy sought to protect development in the countryside;

·         The Landscape Officer had assessed the character of the area and the impact on the local landscape and had concluded that the size of the area of land was harmful to the character of the landscape;

·         The point made by the Agricultural Advisor about the costs associated with the building of the shed taking a long time to recoup was a general point and would not need to be taken into consideration by members;

·         Somerset County Council would not normally be consulted on this type of application.

The Committee was addressed by Anthony Pike in support of the application.  He advised members that he lived in a neighbouring property and that he fully supported the proposal.  He commented that the proposed location was the most practical place for an agricultural building as it could not be seen.  He spoke about the need to support bringing farms back into operation.  He felt that there was a need for an access track to the building to protect the soil.

The Applicant’s Agent, Paul Dance considered the proposed building to be modest in size and was sufficient for the required need.  He explained that it was important for the building to be close to the applicant’s home. The site had been chosen as it was away from the road and next to a thick wooded hedge.  He pointed out that planning permission was not required for the vehicular access and that it was only the driveway that required permission.  The hardstanding was required to protect the soil.  In response to an earlier member comment, the Applicant’s Agent confirmed that pre-application discussions had taken place with the Planning Officer.  He explained that the applicants had purchased agricultural machinery and if the application were to be approved they would no longer require a container for storage.  The applicants were committed to growing their agricultural business and would be willing to relocate the hedge to accommodate visibility splays. 

The Ward Member, Cllr Sue Osborne commented that a number of issues within the report such as tenancy and ownership were not planning matters.  She referred to the design of the shed being at the discretion of the applicants and that detailed business plans were not required for agricultural sheds and that other applications had not asked for funding information.  She felt that the hard standing was required to protect the soil.  She also referred to the agricultural justification and explained that lambing was carried out indoors and it was vitally important to store dry supplies undercover and have somewhere secure to store equipment.    With reference to the scale of the holding she believed that the agricultural business would grow.  She felt that the building would be tucked neatly behind a mature hedge and was fairly close to the property.  She did not believe that the proposed development would cause any harm and that any archaeology would have disappeared a long time ago. 

She proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation subject to highway and access conditions and any other appropriate conditions to be agreed with the applicant and the Planning Officer. The proposal would not cause harm to the landscape character and there was an agricultural need for dry storage and the proposal supported Chapter 3 of the NPPF.

During discussion, some members requested further clarification regarding a number of points which included the following:

·         The Area Lead West clarified that planning permission was not required for the creation of the access but permission was required for the layout and hardstanding.  He confirmed that the removal of the hedge to provide suitable visibility could be controlled by condition;

·         In response to a member comment, the Area Lead West confirmed that the means of access could be agreed by condition to ensure it was compliant with safety standards;

·         The Area Lead West provided further information on the pig and sheep rearing aspect of the business.  The applicant confirmed that the pigs were currently housed in a pig ark outside in the field;

·         If the proposed agricultural building was located on the other side within the residential curtilage it may not require planning permission.

During the ensuing discussion a number of members expressed their support for the application.  One member felt that another opening on the road would be useful. Another member felt that it was important to support young people in farming.

The earlier proposal to approve the application contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation subject to conditions was seconded.  On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried 13 in favour and 1 against.

The reasons given for approval were:

·         the proposed location and siting were acceptable

·         agricultural need

·         the development was in accordance with Policy EQ2 and the NPFF

The Area Lead West suggested a number of conditions in relation to the following:

·         Time Limit

·         In accordance with approved plans

·         Access

·         Relocation of hedgerow

·         Details of hardstanding

·         Landscaping

·         No further extension into the open countryside

·         The building to be used for agricultural purposes only

In response to member comments, the Area Lead West indicated that it was not appropriate to include a non-fragmentation clause or a rider on intensive pig use.

(Voting: 13 in favour, 1 against)