PAPER C

 

Committee :   DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB COMMITTEE

 

Date :              19 SEPTEMBER 2006

 

Title :               PROPOSED SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LIVING ACCOMMODATION (REVISED SCHEME) SHALCOMBE HOLDINGS, MAIN ROAD, SHALCOMBE, YARMOUTH

 

                        REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER

 

 

1.         SUMMARY/PURPOSE

 

            1.1       The purpose of this report is to review Members’ resolution, made at the meeting of the Development Control Sub Committee held on 18 July 2006, to grant conditional permission for a single storey extension to provide additional living accommodation at Shalcombe Holding, Main Road, Shalcombe, Yarmouth.

 

2.         BACKGROUND

 

            2.1       Members will recall that an application for planning permission for a single storey extension to provide additional living accommodation at Shalcombe Holding, Main Road, Shalcombe was considered by the Development Control Committee at the meeting held on 18 July 2006. A copy of the original report is attached as an appendix.  The proposed extension would provide accommodation comprising lounge, kitchen area, bathroom/wc and two bedrooms.  Whilst the submitted plans show an internal link between the extension and the host property, the accommodation could quite easily be occupied without relying on the facilities of the main dwelling.  Consequently, having regard to the location of the property in an isolated location outside of any designated development envelope, the application was recommended for refusal on grounds that the extension would be capable of occupation as a separate unit of living accommodation.

 

            2.2       Notwithstanding the recommendation for refusal, Members indicated that they were satisfied there was a need for the extension to provide accommodation for the applicant’s son, who is engaged in agricultural activities on the holding, and resolved to grant permission, subject to conditions covering the following issues:-

 

·                             Time limit

·                             Materials

·                             Retention of extension as ancillary accommodation to main dwelling

·                             Occupation of annexe to be restricted to person working solely in agriculture

 

2.3       On the morning following the meeting of the Development Control Sub Committee, an e-mail was received from the applicant’s agent expressing concern with regard to the Committee’s resolution, and in particular, the decision to impose a condition on the consent limiting the occupation of the extension to a person solely or mainly working in agriculture.  He points out that the resultant building would be a single planning unit and expresses the view that it is not possible for a condition to apply to only part of the building.  Furthermore, he is concerned that the tie would severely depress the market value of the whole property and make the proposed extension unviable.  In addition, the applicant’s agent suggests that the condition would appear to be ultra vires on grounds of unreasonableness and to support this claim he cites advice in Circular 11/95 which states as follows:-

 

 

“Any condition that would put a severe limitation on the freedom of owners to dispose of their property, or would make it difficult to finance the erection of the permitted development by borrowing on mortgage should be avoided”

 

2.4       The applicant’s agent considers that Members were not advised on issues relating to the imposition of such a condition, which creates a restriction well beyond the intention of the Committee in granting a conditional approval.  Therefore, he requested that the matter was referred back to Committee for clarification before any decision is issued.  The agents concerns and request for reconsideration of the matter by Committee were subsequently confirmed in a letter.

 

2.5       Members will be aware that site occupies an isolated rural location, well outside any defined settlement where restrictive policies of the UDP apply and seek to prevent further development other than that which may be exceptionally permitted in accordance with policies of the plan. Clearly, extensions to existing residential properties of an appropriate size, scale and design to the host building, providing ancillary accommodation, may be considered acceptable.  In this instance, whilst Officers are satisfied  that the extension to the building would not have an adverse impact on the landscape character of the area, officer’s concerns relate to the level of accommodation being provided and the potential for this to be occupied as a separate unit of accommodation, contrary to Policy H7 of the UDP. The applicant’s agent has indicated that the accommodation is required to accommodate the applicant’s son, who is actively engaged in the day-to-day running of the farm, along with his family.  Whilst the application was not supported by a full agricultural appraisal to justify the need for accommodation for an agricultural worker, it was on this basis that Members felt there was a justification to make an exception to policies which restrict further development in the countryside and grant permission for the accommodation.

 

2.6       The applicant’s agent considers that the imposition of any condition restricting occupancy of the accommodation would be unreasonable and has made reference to the advice contained in Circular 11/95 in this respect.  In general terms, where the Local Planning Authority is minded to approve a dwelling in the countryside, as an exception to policies which seek to restrict further development in such areas, on the basis that the accommodation is required for an agricultural worker, it is quite reasonable to impose a condition limiting the occupation of that dwelling.  It this respect, paragraph 16 of Annexe A to PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas advises as follows:-

 

“Where the need to provide accommodation to enable farm, forestry or other workers to live at or near their place of work has been accepted as providing a special justification required for new, isolated residential development in the countryside, it will be necessary ensure that the dwellings are kept available for meeting this need for as long as it exists.  For this purpose, planning permission should be made subject to appropriate occupancy conditions.”

 

2.7       The imposition of such occupancy restrictions will clearly limit the market for qualifying occupants, which in turn will impact on the open market value of the property.  As a guideline figure, the value of a property which is subject to such a restriction will be depressed by around 30% of its open market value.  Consequently, the approval for such dwellings and imposition of occupancy restrictions of this nature must be carefully considered and clearly justified.

 

2.8       Where permission is sought for a dwelling associated with a farming activity, and where it is considered that an existing dwelling already meets the functional needs of that holding, it will be necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that there is a need for an additional unit of accommodation.  Where the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that such need exists, it is not uncommon to restrict occupancy of both the new dwelling and the existing dwelling.  However, the need for a second dwelling must be clearly demonstrated by the applicant and any application for such a proposal must be supported by a full agricultural appraisal in accordance with the Council’s policies and the advice contained in PPS7.

 

2.9       In the case of Shalcombe Holdings, whilst the existing dwelling is not the subject of an Agricultural Occupancy Restriction, it is considered that this dwelling fulfils the functional need for this farm holding.  Furthermore, whilst it is understood that the applicant, Mr Capon, is nearing retirement, this does not in my opinion, in itself justify the need for a second unit of accommodation on this holding.  Furthermore, adequate information has not been forthcoming to enable the Authority to carry out a proper assessment of the need for additional accommodation to be occupied in connection with the holding.

 

2.10    Whilst Members were satisfied that this accommodation was required in the interests of the farm business and resolved to approve the application subject to a condition limiting occupation of the annexe to an agricultural worker, I am concerned that, given the layout and relationship of the additional accommodation to the main dwelling, such a condition may be deemed unreasonable and enforceable.  In addition, in the event that an appeal is lodged against the imposition of this condition, given the lack of an agricultural appraisal to support the application, it would be difficult to demonstrate that the condition had been properly applied.

 

3.         FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

3.1       The applicant would clearly have a right of appeal against the imposition of this condition and, in the event that such an appeal was successful, the Inspector could  made an award of costs against the Authority if it could be demonstrated that it had acted unreasonably in imposing the condition.

4.         LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

 

4.1       There are considered to be no legal implications associated with this matter.

 

5.         OPTIONS

 

1.         To reaffirm the resolution made on 18 July 2006 to approve the application subject to conditions, which include a restriction on the occupancy of the accommodation.

 

2.    To approve the application subject to a condition limiting occupation of the original dwelling and the proposed accommodation to a person solely, mainly or lastly working in agriculture in the locality and to any resident dependents.

 

3.         To approve the application without a condition restricting occupation to a person solely, mainly or last working in the locality in agriculture.

 

4.         To refuse permission for the extension on grounds set out in the original report.

 

6.         CONCLUSION

 

Your Officers remain of the of the view that this proposal is unacceptable for reasons set out in the original report, contrary to policies in the UDP, and that it has not been adequately demonstrated that there is sufficient justification to approve the application as an exception to these policies.  If Members wish to support this proposal on the basis that there is a need for additional accommodation on this site for an agricultural worker, this should be adequately demonstrated by the applicant by the submission of an agricultural appraisal, thereby enabling the Authority to properly assess such need.  In any event, in the absence of any such appraisal and, given the layout of the accommodation in relation to the main dwelling, I consider that it would be inappropriate to impose an occupancy restriction on the proposed accommodation.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

To refuse permission for the extension on grounds set out in the original report.

 

Contact Details :       Andrew Pegram, Development Control Manager

                                    (     01983 825531             E-mail: [email protected]

 

ANDREW PEGRAM

Development Control Manager