Agenda item

We considered the report of the application which was presented for refusal for two reasons, as outlined in the report.

The applicant’s agent, Mr. G. Glasson, attended the meeting by invitation of the Vice-Chair and outlined the following points:

·         Penterry Farm has been compelled to explore farming diversification due to the current economic climate.

·         The additional revenue from holiday letting will support not only the core farm business but will create positive outcomes for the rural economy also.

·         The Farm is well placed located above Tintern Abbey in the Wye Valley and near to the Forest of Dean.

·         Tourism is actively encouraged in Monmouthshire and additional accommodation will strengthen the area’s appeal as a visitor destination.

·         The barn is located between two dwellings and has not been used for agriculture for 10 years due to the impact on the amenities of the two dwellings. It is of modern construction but dates back to the 1970s.  It is in sound condition.

·         Like any other barn conversion, the roof will need replacing and the walls will require cladding. However, it was considered that this does not amount to rebuilding or a new build property. It would be no different if the barn was upgraded to a grain store.

·         The proposed holiday lets would be located on Penterry Farm, would be managed by the farm and used to support the farm.

·         Officers had not previously indicated that a business case was required.  However, if necessary, the applicant could provide one.

·         The applicant is prepared to enter into a Section 106 agreement to ensure the accommodation remains a part of the farm business and satisfies the Planning Department’s need for a stronger linkage.

·         The Barn makes no contribution to the Wye Valley AONB in its current state, the farm has attempted to instil some character into the design. However, it was acknowledged that the windows could be revisited in an amendment to downplay any domestic pretensions.

·         Parking could also be revisited in favour of a more discreet location.

·         There is an opportunity to conserve and enhance the natural beauty in line with Policy LC4.

·         The applicant is not looking to rebuild the barn. However, Policy T2 does allow for the substantial rebuild of the building within the curtilage of an existing and occupied farm property where it assists an agricultural diversification.

·         Officers consider that the barn is on the holding and not within the curtilage of an occupied farm property. However, this was considered to be disingenuous, as the barn is located between two farm dwellings and is part of a long established ribbon of farm development along the farm drive, so it is considered to be within the curtilage of farm property.

·         The barn has no future for agriculture but offers an opportunity for the farm to diversify sustainably without adding any new buildings or covering the fields with yurts, tepees and tree houses.

·         The applicant would welcome the opportunity to work with the Planning Department to modify the scheme and provide the additional supporting evidence required.

·         The applicant’s agent asked the Planning Committee to defer consideration of the application to allow further negotiations to take place between the applicant and the Planning Department.

The local Member for St. Arvans, who is also a Planning Committee Member, asked whether it would be appropriate to delay consideration of the application with a view to the applicant and the Planning Department looking at further diversification opportunities. In response, it was noted that the application was a new build development within the open countryside and did not comply with Planning Policy.  Therefore, officers considered that the recommendation to refuse the application for the two reasons as outlined in the report was the correct recommendation for this application.

In noting the detail of the application, the views expressed by the applicant’s agent and the local Member, it was proposed by County Councillor A. Davies and seconded by County Councillor P. Murphy that application DM/2018/02068 be refused for the two reasons, as outlined in the report.

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

For refusal                 -           10

Against refusal         -           0

Abstentions               -           1

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2018/02068 be refused for the two reasons, as outlined in the report.