Agenda item

Retention of a stable/rural building. Siting of a mobile home to be used as a temporary rural worker’s dwelling with sheds for ancillary residential storage. Change of use of land to a mixed agricultural and alpaca trekking enterprise.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Senior Planning Officer identified the site and explained the proposal. The barn and building to be retained were identified on a site plan and aerial photograph. Photographs of the site, access and nearby road were also shown to members.

The planning history of the site was explained and included a previous application that had been refused, for the conversion of the existing building into rural worker’s accommodation.

Officers considered that the proposal was compliant with planning policy, as the mobile home and storage shed would have minimal impact on the Green Belt due to their modest size and the mixed use would be in keeping with the rural character of the area. A rural worker’s dwelling was considered appropriate due to the high level of care required for the livestock.

It was explained that the Town Council had objected to the application on the grounds of the impact on heritage assets, due to the proximity to St Hubert’s Church, however the Conservation Officer had not raised objection to the proposal.

Public representation was received from the applicant, Mr Cooper, who explained that the farm provided community benefits, such as working with children and adults with additional needs and providing training for students working towards agricultural qualifications.

The meeting adjourned at 10:24 – 10:25 to allow the case officer to clarify information before answering member’s questions.

In response to questions from members the Senior Planning Officer provided the following responses:

·       The alpaca treks didn’t cross public roads and went onto the old railway line adjacent to the site.

·       Husbandry of the alpacas required intensive care which justified the use of a worker’s dwelling, temporary permission was being recommended which would require a new application after 3 years.

·       It was not known whether the applicant had explicit permission from the landowner to use the old railway line for treks.

·       Mobile homes do not have the same permitted development rights as other residential dwellings.

·       The Historic Landscape Character Area data on Dorset Explorer was not considered to be a material planning consideration.

·       The permission for the ancillary residential buildings was also recommended to be temporary.

·       Parts of the application site was subject to surface water flooding, however not where the buildings were proposed and ground water flooding was proven to be low risk.

·       The use of the site for agricultural usage was lawful and would not require planning permission and a condition on livestock density couldn’t be reasonably imposed.

Having had the opportunity to ask questions of the case officer and debate the merits of the application, several members raised questions about the application, including the exterior cladding which they considered to give the structure a more permanent appearance, the legal use of the trail for trekking and whether the worker’s dwelling could be occupied by a widow or retired worker for longer than the 3 year temporary permission. Members considered that they required further information on these points in order to make an informed decision on the application.

It was proposed by Cllr Coombs and seconded by Cllr Sowry-House to defer the application until a later meeting.

Decision: That the application be deferred until a later meeting.