Agenda item

To consider an application for the erection of a temporary custom build agricultural dwelling.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2024/1408/FUL be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – 6 for, 3 against, 2 abstentions

The Officer’s Report stated that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the Planning Officer’s recommendation to refuse differed from that of Buckland Dinham Parish Council which supported the application.

The Report continued that the application related to a parcel of land located to the south of Buckland Dinham, a small village which doesn't benefit from development limits. The land is currently a small holding including an orchard, fruit and vegetable growing and animals. It was a repeat application by the same applicant to secure a dwelling on the site having been refused planning permission earlier in the year for a Self-build dwelling.

In conclusion the Officer’s Report stated that the application failed to demonstrate that there are any special circumstances such as functional or essential need to allow a dwellinghouse in this isolated rural location. The proposal represented unsustainable development in an isolated rural location. Without an essential need to allow a dwellinghouse in this isolated rural location, the proposal would also be harmful to the rural character and appearance of the area and wider landscape, failing to preserve the character of the countryside for its own intrinsic value. In terms of the planning balance, the harms identified carry a significant level of weight which demonstrably outweigh the very limited benefits of the proposal. The recommendation was therefore for refusal of the application.

The Planning Officer explained the application using a PowerPoint presentation.

The applicant was the only speaker. Her comments included:

·       She wished to build a sustainable, rural business and has tried to do this whilst commuting to site from rented accommodation.

·       Commuting to site does not work as animal welfare is round the clock work including during the night.

·       She has plans to expand the use of the land and include permaculture methods which will yield more produce per acre.

·       Aim is to supply local pubs and shops with produce.

·       There are 2 houses within 50m of the site.

·       The cabin would be a temporary building which would be easy to dismantle.

In the discussion which followed, Members were sympathetic to the applicant’s desire to live on the site, however they did not feel the need to live on site had been demonstrated sufficiently. The Planning Officer explained that DP13 was in two parts. The first would be for an applicant to put a caravan on site that could be easily moved, then to supply a business case. If Officer’s think there is a clear, functional need for someone to live on site 24/7, the application may be approved. However, in this case, due to the nature of the construction of the building, it appears more than a temporary structure and there has been no business case provided that it is necessary.

Other Members expressed that they wished to support the application but that the applicant should probably reapply taking the Planning Officer’s comments into consideration. This may result in a more positive outcome.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed by Councillor Rob Reed proposed and Councillor Ros Wyke seconded, to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 6 votes in favour, 3 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2024/1408/FUL be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – 6 for, 3 against, 2 abstentions