APPLICATION NUMBER: WD/D/18/000154 APPLICATION SITE: SILVERHAY FARM, NETHERHAY, DRIMPTON, BEAMINSTER, DT8 3RH PROPOSAL: Erect Farmhouse (without compliance with condition 4 of outline planning permission 1/W/81/00263) APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Hedditch CASE OFFICER: Joanne Langrish-Merritt WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr Ms J Sewell RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Refuse 1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: 1.1 The application is a Variation of condition 4 of planning permission ref. 1/W/81/000263 (the full application) to remove the occupancy limitation in respect of Silverhay Farmhouse. The condition states; 'The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed or last employed, prior to retirement in the locality in agriculture as defined in Section 290 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, or in forestry (including any dependent of such a person residing with him) or widow or widower of such a person.' Reason: To ensure that the dwelling is reserved for occupation by agricultural workers and their dependants 1.2 The site is located on the northern side of the village of Drimpton in the small hamlet of Netherhay. It is located outside of a defined development boundary and is therefore regarded in policy terms as being in the countryside. The property is a four bedroom dwelling with 0.1ha of associated land. 1.3 Outside of DDB’s as set out in the adopted Local Plan new open market dwellings are not permitted unless through the conversion of existing buildings and even then they would be subject to limitations. The proposal sought i.e. the removal of an occupancy restriction is, therefore, contrary to the policies of the adopted local plan. Notwithstanding the fact that the site lies outside of any defined development boundary it is within walking distance of some local facilities and services but they are located in Drimpton - some 0.5km to the public house, along a narrow rural lane mainly without footpaths. 2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT: 2.2 This is a further application to have the agricultural occupancy condition lifted following a previously withdrawn application ref no.WD/D/14/001194. The variation of condition would be for the removal of condition 4 of the approved full application ref. 1/W/81/000263. 3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: Application No. Application Decision Date of decision Description WD/D/14/001194 Removal of Withdrawn 18 July 2014 condition 4 of planning approval ref 1/W/80/672 and condition 1 of planning approval ref 1/W/81/263 to remove agricultural tie 1/W/80/000672. Develop Land By Approved 28-Nov-1980 Erection Of A Farmhouse (outline) 1/W/81/000263 Erect Farmhouse Approved 04-Jun-1981 (full) RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES: 4.1 National Planning Policy Framework The following sections of the NPPF are relevant to the determination of this application: Part 3:Supporting a prosperous rural economy Part 6: Providing a wide choice of homes As far as this application is concerned the following sections of the NPPF are considered to be relevant; Para 186 - Local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development. The relationship between decision-taking and plan-making should be seamless, translating plans into high quality development on the ground. Para 187 - Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Cancelled circular 11/95 With the exception of Appendix A (model conditions) which is retained, circular 11/95 has been cancelled and replaced by new planning practice guidance launched 6 March 2014. The guidance of circular 11/95 is still the up to date relevant source for determining whether or not it is appropriate to remove an agricultural occupancy condition. This indicates that the test of whether there is a need for such dwellings in the vicinity will determine whether the dwelling should be reserved for that purpose. It states: Paragraph 105 Where an agricultural occupancy condition has been imposed it will not be appropriate to remove it on a subsequent application unless it is shown that the existing need for dwellings for agricultural workers in the locality no longer warrants reserving the house for that purpose. This assessment will be necessary in all cases, including those where the condition was originally inappropriately imposed (Sevenoaks DC v Secretary of State for the Environment and Mr and Mrs Geer (1995)69 P.& C.R.87). However, the fact that planning permission for a dwelling would in all probability be granted today without an agricultural occupancy condition is a material consideration (Hambleton DC v Secretary of State for the Environment and others [1994] EGCS 202). 4.2 Adopted West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) As far as this application is concerned the following policies are considered to be relevant. INT1 – Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development SUS2 – Distribution of Development HOUS6 – Other residential development outside of defined development boundaries 5. OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 5.1 None 6. HUMAN RIGHTS: 6.1 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property This Recommendation is based on adopted Development Plan policies, the application of which does not prejudice the Human Rights of the applicant or any third party. 7. PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITIES DUTY: 7.1 As set out in the Equalities Act 2010, all public bodies, in discharging their functions must have “due regard” to this duty. There are 3 main aims:- • Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics • Taking steps to meet the needs of people with certain protected characteristics where these are different from the needs of other people • Encouraging people with certain protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where participation is disproportionately low. Whilst there is no absolute requirement to fully remove any disadvantage the Duty is to have “regard to” and remove OR minimise disadvantage and in considering the merits of this planning application the planning authority has taken into consideration the requirements of the PSED 8. CONSULTATIONS: 8.1 Natural England – No comment 8.2 DCC Highways - no objections 8.3 DCP Environmental Health Officer has no objection 8.4 Broadwindsor Parish Council - Broadwindsor Group Parish Council has been consulted on this application and makes no objection. The Council understands and appreciates the reason for the inclusion of an agricultural tie as part of the planning process, which often helps to ensure succession and operational efficiency. However, changes in agricultural policy and practices over recent years have demonstrated that there are circumstances in which they should be removed and a review should be made on a case by case basis. The removal of an agricultural occupancy condition should be considered against a realistic assessment of the existing need for it, from both the holding itself and the wider local area. With regard to this application, the landholding to which it relates has been substantially reduced and the house itself cannot be justified as an agricultural dwelling. The applicant has served the agricultural sector for many years and now retired, wishes to sell his home. Through marketing of the property and extensive contact with the local agricultural sector, the applicant has demonstrated that there is no demand for the dwelling from agricultural workers in the general locality. There was much discussion amongst Councillors as to whether the dwelling has remained affordable to the farming community. The Parish Council believes that this condition had outlived its usefulness. 8.5 District Valuer – see commentary below 9. REPRESENTATIONS: 9.1 One letter of support and two letters of objection have been received. The main focus of the objections relates to the ownership of additional land and the possibility of passing the house on to other members of the family. 9.2 There has also been significant local support from the Ward Member Cllr Sewell. 10. PLANNING ISSUES: Principle of development in relation to: The need for agricultural tied farm houses The evidence of marketing to see if a need for agricultural occupancy exists The principle of permitting an unrestricted agricultural dwelling in the open countryside and housing land supply 11. PLANNING ASSESSMENT: 11.1 Principle 11.2 The principle considerations are threefold, namely whether there is a continuing need for agriculturally tied farm houses, whether there is any evidence that no agricultural workers have come forward following marketing, and whether it is appropriate to allow an unrestricted dwelling in this isolated open countryside location. 11.3 These requirements stem from the advice in Circular 11/95 paragraph 105 which although cancelled still has relevance for assessment. It advises that where an agricultural occupancy condition has been imposed, it will not be appropriate to remove it on a subsequent application, unless it is shown that the existing need for dwellings for agricultural workers in the locality no longer warrants reserving the house for that purpose. This