Agenda item

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report.

 

The local Member for Devauden, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         There is a laudable ambition to raise calves that might otherwise be of little value.

 

·         The application has been presented to the Committee with a recommendation for approval with two basic reasons, firstly, under TAN 6 and secondly, because the County Council’s consultant now believes that this is a viable plan. However, the consultant had originally considered that this business was not viable.

 

·         This is a 14 acre site with potentially two acres of the site being taken up by the yards and non- grazing area.

 

·         Further land is being made available on an open ended formal agreement.  Therefore, availability of this land cannot be relied upon.

 

·         12 acres of land, on which to base this business plan, is illogical. 125 calves growing into cattle are expected to be reared on this land. The applicant has indicated that the calves will spend four months on milk followed by summer grazing in four batches. This will be difficult to achieve.

 

·         The business plan indicates that it will be a low input system relying on a large acreage of grazing, which this area does not provide.

 

·         The cost of the calves equates to £20 per calf according to the business plan.  Any reasonable calf equates to £100 or more.

 

·         The applicant’s previous business was in Dorset but was not viable because it was not direct selling.  This is a niche market.  However, the applicant expects to sell 125 carcasses by direct selling, internet and mobile phone.  This is a huge output and very difficult to achieve.  The cost of refrigeration, transport to and from the markets and transport costs for internet sales has not been provided.

 

·         The business plan needs to demonstrate that it can support a worker and every worker will need housing.  However, the applicant has indicated that they cannot afford accommodation costs.  The applicant does not need to live on site.

 

·         Capital costs could be shared with other parts of the business.  However, in this case the applicant has to take on the whole of these costs.

 

·         This is a high risk bovine T.B. area. Many of the farmers in this area are under restrictions from T.B. and several farmers nearby have been closed down.

 

·         Contrary to the Council’s consultant’s views, this location is a cold hillside that supports sheep very well.  It is not a site for a speculative calf rearing venture.

 

Ms. L. Coulthard, representing local objectors, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         It is considered that the application is a property development in search of a business case to justify it.

 

·         The plot in question was marketed as such extolling its exceptionally beautiful setting and explicitly mentioning the possibility of building a farm house.

 

·         There is no detrimental effect on someone submitting a retrospective planning application but it was hoped that the Planning Committee will recognise the disregard for planning law that the applicant has demonstrated which raises suspicions about its authenticity as being primarily a genuine new farming business, however well-meaning those business intentions are.

 

·         Objectors are objecting to the application for the same reason that TAN 6 guidance was introduced. To protect the precious highly sought after but rapidly diminishing countryside, which should be safeguarded for the whole community.

 

·         This is no ordinary countryside.  The Devauden escarpment is designated a special landscape area, which is set between two sites of special scientific interest (SSSI).

 

·         If the application is approved, a precedent will be set.

 

·         The three years being offered to the current applicant proves the viability of this enterprise as being crucial because the applicant might then be able to ignore County Council planning and go directly to the Welsh Government and apply under the One Planet Initiative.

 

·         In the consultant’s initial appraisal of the application, many of the TAN 6 tests were assessed initially as not being met. However, in the recent appraisal, these tests have been assessed as being met.  No further evidence has been provided, nor has anyone been able to view a revised business plan or any of the financial information that would be necessary to make a proper assessment of the viability of this business.

 

·         One of the TAN 6 tests states that the business should be based on a sound financial basis. No evidence has been presented.

 

·         Another test relates to the inherent suitability of the site to be tested with clear evidence required in respect of the site selection and the reason why the enterprise could not be accommodated on an alternative site. No evidence has been provided.

 

·         There is no evidence that any other sites have been sought.  There is no evidence to show that the applicant has to live on this site.  The Agricultural and Horticultural Board stated that it was not necessary.

 

·         The decision to approve the application is based on wanting to support new businesses and would go ahead even if someone was not living on site.

 

Mr. S. Andersen, applicant’s agent, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         The initial concerns of the County Council’s consultant were overturned by request of information from the applicant which had led to the consultant changing his view in respect of the application.

 

·         The applicant has worked successfully in agriculture for many years and wants to establish a family run farm on the site. 

 

·         It has been agreed with the planning officers and the consultant that this enterprise meets all the tests of TAN 6. The evidence submitted with the application, along with the approval for a large agricultural building on the site, as well as there being plenty of land for the business, means that the enterprise meets all of the tests.

 

·         The applicant has the option to rent additional land, if and when required.

 

·         The applicant had run an enterprise from Dorset but the business outgrew the land and she needed to relocate. Relocation was based on finding land that was suitable in size and could provide for future expansion.

 

·         Of all the potential sites, it was this site that met the applicant’s needs. The planning permission for an agricultural building further attracted the applicant to the site.

 

·         The applicant has past experience and success and has numerous qualifications and awards.  There have been various newspaper articles about the applicant, as well as many letters of support.

 

·         The applicant is serious about farming and has past experience.

 

·         The applicant wants the opportunity for the farming enterprise to expand and to become a success. What TAN 6 aims to do is support living and working in rural communities.

 

·         It has been agreed between the applicant and the Council’s consultant that all tests set out in TAN 6 have been met and the applicant should be given the opportunity to prove that the enterprise will be successful.

 

·         The applicant is not applying for a permanent dwelling.

 

Having considered the views expressed, the following points were noted:

 

·         The soil and stone has been dumped around the site. The cost of removal and reinstatement will be considerable.

 

·         The scale of the development is no longer commensurate with the size of the plot.

 

·         The access is poor for this type of development.

 

·         Three year consent for a business at this site would be desirable but there would be no justification for any future application for any type of dwelling on this site.

 

·         The business case is poor and does not take into account the real costs involved in acquiring the animals.

 

·         The land is not conducive to the number of cattle proposed. The land is better suited to the grazing of sheep.

 

·         If the venture failed the site would be left with a very large shed. It would be doubtful as to how this could be utilised.

 

·         Concern was expressed that the application could not be considered financially viable when the barn and caravan are nor factored into the costing.

 

·         There is no reference in the report to Rural Enterprise Dwelling appraisals in which such an appraisal must accompany planning applications of this type of development.

 

·         There is no need to be located on the site to run this type of business.

 

The local Member summed up by stating that this is an application just for a temporary home.  It does not prevent someone with enterprise wanting to try a business venture, but living on the site is not necessary.

 

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, it was proposed that we be minded to refuse application DC/2016/01219 on the grounds that there is no need for a temporary dwelling to be located at this site for such a business venture. The application will be re-presented to a future Planning Committee meeting with reasons for refusal.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

 

For refusal                 -           12

Against refusal         -           0

Abstentions               -           1

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DC/2016/01219 be refused on the grounds that there is no need for a temporary dwelling to be located at this site for such a business venture. The application will be re-presented to a future Planning Committee meeting with reasons for refusal.