Agenda item

Officer’s Report

 

The PO introduced the officer’s report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions. She advised the amended plans had been received after the publication of the agenda, the PO detailed the changes at the meeting which addressed the Landscape and Conservation and Design Officers comments. The amendments related to proposed materials, omission of a window and increased boundary tree planting. The PO outlined the site’s location, relationship with its local setting including Sharrington Conservation Area, proposed elevation and floor plan, and images of the site.

 

The key issues for consideration related to principle of development, landscaping, and heritage harm.

 

The application was considered to comply with NNDC Core Strategy Policy HO5. The PO confirmed that the independent agricultural assessor (Acorus) had undertaken a site visit, observed all the tenanted and privately owned land, as well as the farm’s profit and loss records, and was satisfied there was suitable need for a new dwelling. Further, the farm was considered to be financially viable.

 

Landscaping concerns had been largely addressed by the application, with a reduction in use of glazing and an increase in the volume of trees on the southern boundary. However, it was noted that the domestication of the current agricultural field remained a concern for consultees.

 

Heritage concerns had been identified by the Conservation and Design Officer, who objected to the proposal. These concerns related to the infilling of the currently open site, the gap between the hedges was considered to positively contribute to the village setting and the wider landscape. The views across the field were considered the principal contributor to Sharrington’s setting on the edge of the Glaven Valley and part of the settlement’s defining characteristics. The PO advised that the heritage harm identified was deemed to be less than substantial, therefore the public benefits arising from the scheme must be weighed against this harm.

 

It was acknowledged that the Local Planning Authority was currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year Housing Land Supply. The PO advised the proposal would provide a benefit in contributing a new dwelling to the local housing land supply, however as this is only one dwelling the benefit was limited.

 

The PO noted that the proposal would provide a rural workers dwelling to meet an identified need, supporting the local economy and vitality of the rural community as well as a well-established rural farming business. Given the mitigating factors of the development proposed, on balance and in this instance, the harm to the affected heritage asset was considered to be outweighed by the limited public benefit of the scheme, officers therefore recommended approval of the application subject to conditions.

 

Public Speakers

 

Deborah Hyslop – Brinton and Sharrington Parish Council

Keith Parks – Objecting

Jerry Stone – Supporting

 

 

 

Members’ Debate and Questions

 

      i.        The Local Member – Cllr A Brown – reflected that this was a difficult application to determine at the present meeting, given the Glaven Valley Conservation Area Appraisal (GVCAA) was due to be considered the following week (the agenda having already been published). The appraisal had been subject to extensive discussions and consultations over the last 18 months and would likely be adopted at Cabinet on 4^th November following a recommendation from the Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party. The Local Member noted that once the GVCAA was approved, the whole of the proposed site would fall within the Conservation Area. He felt it would be dangerous to consider the application ahead of the consideration and adoption of the GVCAA, as the adoption of the appraisal would have implications on the weight of harm attributed to the application and was critical of the public benefits identified by the scheme. Cllr A Brown proposed deferral of the application until the GVCAA, affecting 80% or more of the site, was adopted.

 

     ii.        Cllr M Batey seconded the motion for deferral.

 

    iii.        Cllr L Vickers spoke against deferral. She considered that a delay on a technicality may result in a change to the officer’s current recommendation for approval.

 

   iv.        The Chairman noted that work had been ongoing to the GVCAA proposals for a considerable length of time. Given that the document was in an advanced stage, it was relevant in Members considerations. If was a matter for members to determine whether the minor boundary changes were sufficient reasons to defer or refuse.

 

     v.        The DM reflected that this was an unusual situation. He confirmed that adoption of GVCAA would result in the entirety of the site falling within the Conservation Area. In determining the application Members were asked to consider and weigh up the harm arising from the proposal, which was considered to be less than substantial, against the public benefit.  He recognised that whilst the GVCAA had not yet been adopted, it was far advanced and noted that Members may wish to defer consideration of the application to obtain a view Conservation and Design Officer as to the weight of heritage harm they would attribute from GVCAA with respect of the proposal.

 

   vi.        The Chairman reiterated that Member’s should form a determination on the evidence provided, officer’s guidance and the independent advice received.

 

  vii.        Cllr L Vickers stated that she did not consider there to be justification of a delay and was not persuaded by the arguments for deferral. Farming was not a 9-5 job, and there was a demonstrable need for an agricultural worker dwelling.

 

 viii.        Cllr J Punchard echoed Cllr L Vickers comments and spoke against deferral. He reflected that planning applications continued to be determined even though the new Local Plan had yet to be adopted and did not consider this situation should be treated differently.   

 

   ix.        Cllr L Paterson considered their sufficient information to form a determination.

 

     x.        Cllr V Holliday noted a resolution had been passed by Cabinet (following recommendation from Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party) that weight should be attributed to several policies within the emerging Local Plan. She argued that the GVCAA was in its final stages, having been in discussion for a long time, and agreed with Cllr A Brown that this should carry weight.

 

   xi.        Cllr P Fisher confirmed he was nervous to form a determination of the application when the GVCAA was due to be determined and (likely) adopted in the very near future. He welcomed deferral of the application.

 

  xii.        Cllr A Brown agreed with Cllr V Holliday that there were parallels with the weight attributed with the emerging Local Plan, and that the same principle should apply with the GVCAA. He considered this appropriate given the GVCAA was a supplementary planning document which informed the Local Plan. He reiterated his concern about the soundness of process in determining the application at the meeting and considered there would be a risk of judicial review. Cllr A Brown acknowledged if the application were to be deferred it would only be a delay of around 4 weeks.

 

 xiii.        The PL stated she was concerned about the lack of mention of the GVCAA and its imminency of adoption within the officer’s report. She considered that due weight should be given to the GVCAA.

 

 xiv.        The ADP determined that the risk of judicial review was light, though acknowledged the comments made by the PL.

 

  xv.        Cllr G Mancini-Boyle asked, should the application be deferred, whether this would be detrimental to the application. He considered that applications shouldn’t be delayed for emerging policies.

 

 xvi.        The DM advised that the introduction of the whole of the site into the GVCA may have an additional heritage impact, which may be detrimental to the application.

 

xvii.        The ADP reflected that within the next 12 months there would be an array of additional planning considerations including changes to the NPPF and adoption of the new Local Plan. He asserted that Cllr A Brown was correct in his comments that the GVCAA was well advanced and detailed on a published agenda. The ADP advised that the inclusion of the site within the GVCA may not automatically result in officer’s taking a different view, it may change the weight given to policy. If Members were to defer the application, it would be in the knowledge that the GVCAA was likely to be adopted. However, the ADP considered Members had enough information to consider the application at the meeting and commented that there wouldn’t be a significant risk in relation to that decision.

 

THE VOTE WAS LOST by 6 votes for and 6 votes against deferment. The Chairman used his casting vote against deferment.

 

xviii.        Cllr L Paterson proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation for approval. The application was for an agricultural workers dwelling, to which there was a known need, it was sensitively designed and would be well screened.

 

 xix.        Cllr J Punchard seconded the motion.

 

  xx.        Cllr A Brown contended that the agricultural workers dwelling was actually a disguise for a retirement property. He considered the history of the site and earlier applications which cited the applicant was of ill health and soon to retire. The application was removed from the principal farmhouse, he understood from the Agricultural Tenancy Act that the lead tenant was obliged to occupy the principal farmhouse.  Cllr A Brown argued that the application was not policy compliant, and it was not necessary for the dwelling to be built when other properties in the community could be instead brought. Considering the applicant’s health, he argued that there was instead a need for a temporary dwelling, but that he would not be supportive of such a structure. He commented that one dwelling would not tip the balance with respect of the Local Planning Authority’s 5-year Housing Land Supply position. He noted that the barn did not meet the test for permitted development and so had been added to the scheme, contributing to additional heritage harm.

 

 xxi.        Cllr V Holliday acknowledged the significant number of objections from the community, and from various officers, which she contented should be taken into account. Based on her observations, she questioned whether pigs needed farmers to live in close proximity.

 

xxii.        Cllr L Paterson asked if it would be permissible for the dwelling to be used by an agricultural worker who subsequently retires.

 

xxiii.        The DM advised it would be permissible depending on the wording of the occupancy restriction.

 

xxiv.        Cllr P Neatherway noted that Environmental Health hadn’t responded as a consultee.

 

xxv.        The PO confirmed that Environmental Health hadn’t responded at the time of writing but had since made no objection.

 

IT WAS RESOLVED by 7 votes for 5 against.

 

That planning application PF/23/1352 be APPROVED in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.