Agenda item
APPLICATION NO. 22/2020/0735/PF - LAND ADJACENT TO HENDRERWYDD FARM, HENDRERWYDD, DENBIGH
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Wednesday, 10 November 2021 9.30 am (Item 5.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 5.
To consider an application for the erection of a rural enterprise dwelling, installation of a private treatment plant and associated works at land adjacent to Hendrerwydd Farm, Hendrerwydd, Denbigh (copy attached).
Minutes:
An application was submitted for the erection of a rural
enterprise dwelling, installation of a private treatment plant and associated
works at land adjacent to Hendrerwydd Farm, Hendrerwydd, Denbigh.
Public Speaker –
Ian Jones (For)
– provided some background history in terms of his family’s long standing
residence at the farm and dairy farming with the business having gained organic
status in 2006 offering high standards and sustainability, and highlighted the
number of dairy farms had reduced due to the stringent criteria. Planning permission had been sought to
provide on-site quality accommodation for a Dairy Herd Manager with the 2
bedroom holiday-let cottage unsuitable for that purpose.
General Debate – Councillor Huw Williams (Local Member) had
requested the application be referred to the Committee to discuss the principle
of the proposal and need for an additional dwelling to support the farm
enterprise. He reported upon the success
of the business and its importance in terms of future sustainability and the
environmental agenda which should be supported, and would also provide a
dwelling to meet those needs and benefit the community. Most of the TAN 6 tests had been met and the
proposed siting of the dwelling had been explained given the limitations on
other areas of the farm complex. He urged members to grant consent.
Councillor Merfyn Parry provided some further
context advising that it was a progressive farm which had made necessary
changes to become organic, detailing the work involved in operating the
business and ensuring animal welfare.
Planning tests had justified the need for an additional dwelling for a
farm worker. With regard to concerns
regarding the distance of the proposed dwelling from the farm complex, the reasoning
behind the location had been justified in terms of the constraints of land not
being in the Applicant’s ownership; location of the gas pipeline and flood
risk. Councillor Parry did not consider
the size of the proposed dwelling to be excessive and in response to officers’
suggestion of possible use of the holiday let, advised of the housing
arrangements proposed by the Applicant with a view to attracting a high calibre
of applicant for the role who had a requirement to live on-site and formed part
of the recruitment package. The 2
bedroom holiday let/cottage would not attract a modern family to the employment
and the intention was to use it as a holiday let or temporary workforce if
needed – there were no other suitable properties available in the
locality. Consequently, he believed the
application did pass the criteria for TAN 6 and proposed the application be
granted, seconded by Councillor Mark Young.
Councillor Young also asked whether it was usual practice in these
circumstances, given the welfare needs of the animals could be better met
on-site, for a farm worker to reside a mile away as referred to in the report.
Officers confirmed that there was no dispute in
terms of the need for a second dwelling for a farm worker and that the issue
focused on whether all other options had been explored in terms of alternative
accommodation before granting permission to build a new dwelling in the open
countryside. Officers considered the
existing holiday let structure annexed to the farmhouse to be suitable and
available for that purpose – if not in its current form then through
conversion. The Council’s Consultants
had suggested potential suitable dwellings within one mile of the site but
members’ may take a different view and there were no specific examples which
mirrored the current application to point to.
Councillor Mark Young responded that it was usual practice for
agricultural workers to reside on-site as evidenced on other farms in the
county and previous permissions granted which he believed to be better for both
animal and staff welfare and the environment.
Members debated the merits of the application
and Councillor Parry put forward further arguments regarding the inadequacies
of the holiday let accommodation, both in terms of recruitment/attracting staff
and its conversion potential. Reference
was also made to its separate use as a holiday let and its potential use for
temporary staff during busy periods.
Councillor Brian Jones referred to the climate change agenda with
reference to organic farming and highlighted the need to promote that agenda
whilst accepting that there were clear barriers to progressing those ambitions
given current planning policies/considerations, and work was needed to ensure a
more cohesive approach. Officers responded
to the issues raised advising that issues around furthering the organic farming
industry and the existing holiday let not being suitable for the calibre of
staff to be recruited were not material planning considerations and there must
be robust planning reasons to depart from planning policy and withstand legal
challenge. The finance from the holiday
let was not part of the business proposal or application and if members were
minded to grant the application a condition could be imposed to restrict the
occupation of the dwelling to a farm worker.
The test showed a functional need for two farm workers to be living
on-site and consequently there was no justification to keep the holiday-let
cottage in reserve for the potential convenience of additional albeit temporary
workers for which there was no current permission in place.
There was further debate on the suitability of
the holiday-let accommodation with officers confirming their view that the
holiday-let accommodation was available and suitable to meet the needs of the
farm business and there were plans in place (from a previous permission granted
in 2005) which showed the dwelling could be improved to be 100 square metres, 4
bedroom dwelling, and with a revised planning application could be further
extended and upgraded. Councillor Parry
argued that all TAN 6 tests had been met given that the holiday-let
accommodation was not suitable as a second dwelling in its current form and was
not suitable for further development given the age of the building and issues
around insulation. The Legal Adviser
highlighted the potential risk of a decision on that basis and sufficiency of
the reasoning to depart from the policy.
Whilst there would be no appeal from the Applicant in that case there
was potential for judicial review.
Proposal – Councillor Merfyn Parry proposed, seconded by
Councillor Mark Young that the application be granted, contrary to officer
recommendation, on the basis that all the tests for TAN 6 had been met given
that the holiday-let accommodation was not suitable as a second dwelling for an
agricultural worker in its current form and was not suitable for further
development due to its age and structural condition.
VOTE:
FOR – 8
AGAINST – 6
ABSTAIN – 1
RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED, contrary to officer recommendation, notwithstanding the
report, on the grounds that all tests for TAN 6 had actually been met given
that the holiday-let accommodation annexed to the existing farmhouse was not
suitable as a second dwelling for an agricultural worker in its current form
and was not suitable for further development due to its age and structural
condition, and that a report on the proposed planning conditions to be attached
to the consent be brought back to the Committee for approval.
Supporting documents: