Agenda item

Public Participation

Steve Yalland, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Ian Cradock spoke in support of the application

Steve Sims, as the senior planning case officer, presented the report which had recommended that the proposed agricultural workers dwelling be granted temporary planning permission for a period of three years subject to conditions.

Steve Sims, as the senior planning case officer, presented the report which recommended that the proposed agricultural workers dwelling be granted temporary planning permission for a period of three years subject to conditions.

Key issues highlighted included: the principle of the development; the visual impact upon the surrounding area; the design, bulk, height, general appearance and the environmental/highway impacts. The Committee was informed that Hilperton Parish Council objected to the application proposal. The committee was informed that the applicant had already moved onto the site with a different mobile home to that being proposed under the application after leaving their previous residency. Members were informed that the on-site occupation was unauthorised and that in the event permission was granted for the development being proposed, a condition could remedy the breach. The financial and functional agricultural justification was also summarised and members were informed that the Council’s appointed agricultural adviser had provided a report that was summarised in the committee papers. 

The committee presentation identified land that was owned and rented by the applicant to which the Council’s agricultural adviser duly referenced in his report. The committee were informed of the parcels of rented land the applicant asserted to have agreements in place with the requisite land owners, however on the day of the committee meeting a late representation had been shared with officers  questioning the accuracy of the submission which led officers to make direct contact with the applicant and agent in an attempt to seek clarification before the meeting to ascertain whether the extent of rented land available to the applicant had changed since the application was submitted and what land parcels could be evidenced to have formal rental agreements in place to support the claim that the farm enterprise could fully justify on-site residency for an agricultural worker.

The committee was informed that officers had not received the evidence or clarity being sought on the day of the meeting and out of fairness to the applicant, the committee was asked to consider a deferral until the information was shared and have the case reported back to committee for consideration. Members were furthermore advised that in the event that the land available for the use of the applicant had materially changed, it would be necessary to re-engage the services of the Council’s agricultural consultant to review any fresh submission and justification.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officers which focused on: The confidential nature of the representation received; the nature of when proof of landownership is normally requested and the enforcement history.

It was also noted that there had been previous enforcement investigations relating to the site whereby an unauthorised mobile home had previously been stationed on the site that was subsequently removed. The current unauthorised mobile home is not yet subject to formal enforcement proceedings and officers advised that this will remain the case until the outcome of the planning application is known. 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee, as detailed above.

The local member, Councillor Ernie Clark, moved to defer the application, which was seconded by the Chairman, to enable officers to obtain more information to be supplied.

A debate followed, where the following key points were raised which related to the need for the agricultural consultant to review the information again and to submit a clear recommendation.

The original motion was amended to include the need for the agricultural consultant to review the information and to provide a fresh recommendation.

At the end of the debate it was;

Resolved:

To defer the application to enable officers to request more information from the applicant in terms of land available for his agricultural use and for the council’s agricultural consultant to review the information and evidence and provide a revised report and recommendation.