Agenda item

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval as follows:

 

The occupancy of the dwelling shall be restricted to those:

 

a)    solely or mainly working or last working on a rural enterprise in the locality where there is / was a defined functional need; or if it can be demonstrated that there are no such eligible occupiers, to those;

 

b)    who would be eligible for consideration for affordable housing under the local authority's housing policies: or if it can be demonstrated that there are no persons eligible for occupation under either a) and b);

 

c)    widows, widowers or civil partners of the above and any resident dependants.

 

Shirenewton Community Council, had submitted a written statement outlining the community council’s objections to the application which was read to the Planning Committee by the Head of Planning, as follows:

 

‘1. Shirenewton Community Council objects to the entire removal of the Agricultural Occupancy Condition (AOC) but would approve a variation extending it to allow occupation connected to local rural enterprises on the following grounds as we understand that a market gardener has expressed interest in acquiring the property.

2. The site consists of a dilapidated bungalow unoccupied now for some 11 years. The applicant asserts that the property has been on the market for over a year and interest has come from buyers who in the main cannot satisfy the agricultural occupancy condition although an offer of £142000 with the AOC remaining in place was rejected. The applicant has however imposed an overage clause for further money to be paid in the event of discharge of the AOC or the grant of planning permission, which clause does not appear to have been factored into the property valuations by the selling agents nor the District Valuer. The offer of £142,000 demonstrates that the property is saleable albeit not at the price sought by the applicant, which is not a reason for discharging the AOC, neither is the applicant's assertion that the AOC prevents him obtaining a loan for the cost of the renovation work as if correct the applicant's recourse is the sale of the property. We now understand that the offer of £142,000 has been overtaken by a much higher offer from the prospective market gardener. This demonstrates that there are buyers who would fund the work.  Indeed we understand the applicant himself only acquired the site (with the farm) in very recent years.

3. That no farm or forest employee has come forward either to buy or rent the property is more an indication of what they can afford. As a community our residents desire housing to be available at a price reflecting what our families can afford. Retaining the AOC constrains the market price making the property more affordable for farm and forest businesses and extending the AOC to rural enterprises would increase the market for such a property. Removing the AOC in its entirety would at a stroke release the property onto the private residential market and the price would jump by some 30%, pricing out any local or rural worker or enterprise. A single property like this is of no interest to the housing associations being too remote to service.

4. We note that the application is for variation or removal of the AOC and we invite Monmouthshire County Council to vary the condition to encompass rural workers and enterprises and / or those with an established local connection – such as families on its housing list.

We are grateful that Monmouthshire County Council rarely discharges its AOC as this plays an important part in maintaining the local landscape character for current and future generations.’

 

The applicant, Mr. Richard Harry, had prepared a video recording which was presented to Planning Committee and the following points were outlined:

 

·         The applicant bought the property at auction in 2016 with plans to renovate it.

 

·         The applicant did not appreciate what impact the existence of the tie would have on his plans.

 

·         Because of the poor condition of the property and that the applicant does not meet the tie in planning terms he has been unable to obtain finance.  The minimum renovation costs are significant.

 

·         The applicant explored whether the agricultural tie could be removed and sought pre-application advice from the Planning Department.  Planning Department advice was that if the applicant wanted to remove the tie then the property would have to be marketed.

 

·         At this point the applicant determined that he would market the property with a view to selling it if a fair offer could be achieved.  If he could not receive a fair offer then he considered that he would have a good case to remove the tie.

 

·         The applicant has been fully transparent with the Planning Department regarding what was being marketed and the guide price of the property and no objections were raised.

 

·         After 12 months the marketing exercise failed to secure a purchaser so this planning application was submitted.

 

·         The test applicable is very simple. Firstly, the Committee has to be satisfied that the marketing exercise has been carried out correctly and planning officers believe this to be the case. Secondly the Committee has to be satisfied that there is no demand for this particular property.  This is the point where it is considered by the applicant that the Planning officer’s report is incorrect.

 

·         The applicant made the following points with regard to the Planning report:

 

-       The Planning Department has reached its conclusion that there is demand by classing mere expressions of interest that are claimed to have been heard. This is incorrect. Demand is only proven if there is an acceptable and proceedable offer made by someone who is able to meet the occupancy condition.  There is no such demand.

 

-       The Planning Department considers that there is demand for rural enterprise dwellings in Monmouthshire generally.  This is irrelevant for the purpose of determining this application.

 

-       The evidence submitted by the applicant proves there is no demand for the property as a rural enterprise dwelling.  The marketing process sought to establish the background of potential purchasers when an enquiry was made. No demand has been shown from any rural enterprise workers in the previous 20 months.  This means that the removal of the tie is justified under Welsh Government Guidance.

 

·         It was considered that officers have not taken into account the marketing report which should have been the basis on which demand was assessed. Instead, expression of interests have been taken into account. 

 

·         What could be a desirable rural property remains unoccupied and deteriorates further.

 

·         The applicant considers that the officer recommendation within the report is incorrect and that complete removal of the tie is justified.

 

The local Member for Shirenewton, also a Planning Committee Member, outlined the following points:

 

·         The local Member outlined the planning history of the site.

 

·         Private market housing is available locally but there is a need to retain the supply of rural and affordable dwellings to support the local rural economy and not price rural enterprises out of the market.

 

·         The officer recommendation within the report follows national planning policy in TAN 6 to approve the widening of that tie bringing it up to date to cover a rural enterprise and affordable housing tie.

 

·         If the tie is removed then the property will be sold as a private dwelling at an increased price and will reduce the number of much needed rural enterprises and affordable dwellings needed in this rural farm based area.

 

·         TAN 6 states that when lifting existing agricultural occupancy conditions, the local planning authority should consider replacing the existing agricultural occupancy condition with the rural enterprise dwelling condition to meet the housing needs of rural workers and local people in need of affordable housing.

 

·         There have been more than expressions of interest made in respect of this dwelling.  Offers have been made.

 

·         The local Member expressed her support for the officer recommendation as outlined in the report.

 

Having received the report of the application and the views expressed, the following points were noted:

 

·         Support was expressed for the inclusion of a rural enterprise condition.

 

·         Concern was expressed that imposing the TAN 6 regulation might condemn the dwelling to being empty for an even longer period.

 

·         Concern was expressed that the purchase price of the dwelling with the required renovations might be too expensive to purchase for many agricultural workers.

 

·         It was noted that there is not a financial contribution for change of use of commercial buildings into residential properties.

 

·         With regard to this application, there is no opportunity to claim any additional affordable housing contributions for the property.

 

The local Member for Shirenewton summed up as follows:

 

·         The officer recommendation as outlined in the report should be followed.

 

·         The applicant marketed the property at £200,000. However, the District Valuer valued the property at £185,000.  If the tie is removed, its value will be £265,000. 

 

·         None of the original applicant’s estate agents valuation of 2000 took account of the overage condition that the applicant was placing on the property when offering it for sale.  It means that there is equivalent to a penalty clause on the land if a buyer purchased it for £140,000 rather than £185,000 they would still have to pay the seller the uplift if the agricultural tie was removed or the property extended in the next 35 or 50 years, meaning the buyer would have to pay the seller in the region of £40,000 if the new buyer gave permission to remove the agricultural occupancy condition.

 

·         All of this would occur without the applicant having to make any affordable housing contribution if the AOC is removed.

 

·         The enquiry of the housing associations on affordable housing was a ‘tick box’ exercise.

 

·         It had not been made clear that a housing association could apply to modify the condition.

 

·         The new condition makes it clear that if there is no one eligible for the Rural Enterprise Condition then it can be considered for people eligible for affordable housing.

 

·         The District Valuer was asked after the main report about the extra overage condition and stated that it would be unlikely to have a major impact to the valuation but the only real way of knowing this is if it was marketed without the overage clause.  Even if it was advertised without this clause the condition of the property’s lack of land it comes with may still deter prospective purchasers.  However, despite all of this the offer detailed in paragraph 6.5 of the report has increased to £200,000.

 

·         It is not merely an expression of interest. The local Member considers that the property will not be left to deteriorate.  By extending the condition to a Rural Enterprise, it opens the dwelling up to opportunities such as market gardening.

 

·         There is an interest in this property despite its condition.  There are no issues relating to obtaining a mortgage.

 

·         It will be contrary to National Planning Policy not to follow the officer’s recommendation as outlined in the report.

 

·         Monmouthshire needs more affordable rural enterprises.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor L. Brown and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that application DM/2020/00881 be approved as follows:

 

The occupancy of the dwelling shall be restricted to those:

 

a)    solely or mainly working or last working on a rural enterprise in the locality where there is/was a defined functional need; or if it can be demonstrated that there are no such eligible occupiers, to those;

 

b)    who would be eligible for consideration for affordable housing under the local authority's housing policies: or if it can be demonstrated that there are no persons eligible for occupation under either a) and b);

 

c)    widows, widowers or civil partners of the above and any resident dependants.

 

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

 

For approval             -           11

Against approval      -           2

Abstentions               -           0

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DM/2020/00881 be approved as follows:

 

The occupancy of the dwelling shall be restricted to those:

 

a)    solely or mainly working or last working on a rural enterprise in the locality where there is/was a defined functional need; or if it can be demonstrated that there are no such eligible occupiers, to those;

 

b)    who would be eligible for consideration for affordable housing under the local authority's housing policies: or if it can be demonstrated that there are no persons eligible for occupation under either a) and b);

 

c)    widows, widowers or civil partners of the above and any resident dependants.