Agenda item

Barn Farm Babelake Street Packington Ashby De La Zouch Leicestershire LE65 1WD

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor N Smith, Ward Member, addressed the Committee. He advised that he had been asked by the applicant to speak at Committee to put forward the facts. He reminded Members that the original application was refused as it was not financially viable, however the applicant had now acquired in excess of 50 acres of extra land. He stated that the applicant could not expand the livestock unless he lived on site to look after the animals and therefore could not live there unless he had a house to live in. He went on to inform the Committee that the applicant currently lived in Donisthorpe, worked in Coalville and was making three trips a day to the farm to assist his parents on the farm. He highlighted to Members that, as far as he was aware, the application in front of them was the only application that Packington Parish Council had not objected to that was outside the Limits to Development and that Babelake Street was a one way street with only four properties on, and that the new dwelling would not look out of place in the vicinity. He urged Members to support to help sustain small farms. 

Mr M Wathes, supporter, addressed the Committee. He advised Members that five generations of the family had been farming the land for a hundred years and his parents were at retirement age and he wished to work at the farm full time. He stated that he lived five miles from the site with his young family and due to personal reasons, temporary accommodation was not suitable for them. He stated that he was recommended for start-up businesses which the farm was not, as within the next year they were on target to look after 820 sheep and rearing 120 calves. He explained that as result of the new TB isolation unit, there was a need for him to be resident on the farm full time. He informed Members that the farm had invested in new machinery, increased the sheep flock by 40% and acquired additional land which showed clear commitment to the farm which had been a key consideration by Members. He highlighted that the situation of the dwelling would have minimal impact on the countryside and that small working farms in villages were dying out and urged the Committee to support the application.

Mr A Large, agent, addressed the Committee. He advised Members that since the deferral of the application he was pleased to see that officers accepted that there was a functional need for the dwelling and he thanked the officers for working practically to overcome the concerns. He highlighted that planning policy statement 7 (PP 7) was mentioned continuously throughout the report but stressed that the policy no longer existed and had been replaced by one sentence in the NPPF which promoted the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses. He stated that case law had shown that PPS 7 was now guidance and that it was not required to be adhered to rigorously; instead a pragmatic view on the actual circumstances at the holding was to be taken. He informed Members that the proposal at Barn Farm showed that the next generation wants to work full time, proposals to grow the business, acquiring more land, a new TB isolation unit, capital reserves available and the low costs of a self-build dwelling. He advised Members that monies derived from the farming business can be used to fund the cost of a new dwelling, adding that the business had been profitable for the past three years and the son would have sufficient funds also. He urged the Committee to support the application.

Councillor M B Wyatt stated that all Members were aware that farming was not an easy occupation and it was a passion. He moved that the application be permitted.

The motion was seconded by Councillor V Richichi.

Councillor J Legrys asked that, if the Committee was minded to permit the application as an agricultural workers dwelling could a condition be added that the dwelling be demolished if it was no longer a farm.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised the Committee that an agricultural tie could be put on it to cover occupation of the house, so that it could not be occupied unless the household was working in agriculture, but that would not require the demolition of the house. .

Councillor M Specht stated that he was happy to support Councillor M B Wyatt’s motion to permit.

Councillor V Richichi asked the Senior Planning Officer whether he had ever been involved in looking after livestock. The Senior Planning Officer said that he had.

Councillor V Richichi stated that it would not be a market house, that there was a functional need for the development, that the dwelling could be tied by an agricultural need and that animals required care from workers that needed to be onsite. He expressed concerns about the statement from the Independent Agricultural Planning Advisor that there was no need for the worker to be on site as back in 2014 when acting as a consultant for an applicant from a neighbouring authority he had stated that for the welfare and care of livestock, workers need to be onsite. He stated that PP 7 was no longer relevant but it had been used throughout the report, but it had been superseded by paragraph 55 and that it was essential for the worker to be on site as part of good husbandry. He asked if the officer had taken into consideration the single farm payment as well as the income that was generated as the money available would be quite a bit more.

In response to the question from Councillor V Richichi, the Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee that it had not been a consideration by the consultant.

Councillor G Jones reiterated the concerns expressed by Councillor V Richichi over the advice of the consultant and that despite revised Government guidelines, local councils were still not convinced of the value in building residential homes like the proposal in front of them to help solve the rural housing crisis.

Councillor J Hoult supported the motion to permit as the farmer was over the retirement age but should be able to remain on the farm which was a good reason for the building.

Councillor D Stevenson commented that, based on what he had heard, he had himself missed out on a video link, over the years.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted on the grounds that the proposed house was needed to enable the applicant’s son to look after the farm, and that the house would be tied to the agricultural unit, and subject to the imposition of conditions be delegated to the Head of Planning and Regeneration.