PAPER C
Committee : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB COMMITTEE
Date : 22 AUGUST 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
1.1 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