Council Meeting – 8th March 2021

Mr M Bendle (Chair), Mr J Blackmore, Mr R Brown, Mr R Drew (Vice Chairman), Mr J Kidner, Mr N King, Mrs A Weekes, District Councillor S Clist, 3 members of the public and Mrs D Evans (Parish Clerk)

4.1      Mr Drew declared a personal interest.  He had previously worked for the applicant and felt, in the interests of transparency, that he should abstain from voting on the matter.

Several members of the public attended the meeting to offer local knowledge about the site and activities carried out on the holding.  Concerns were raised over the accuracy of information provided with the application.

Planning application considered for:-

4.1       21/00171/FULL.  Change of use of land for the siting of a temporary worker’s dwelling (log cabin) for three years.  Poachers Rest, Clayhidon.

The following comments were made:-

Livestock – consists of some chickens (possibly 30-40) and a few horses.  In the past there have been a few sheep and, for a few days, 2 cattle.

Land – the land is clay and lies wet.  It is unsuitable for livestock for at least 4 – 6 months of the year as it is water-logged.

Financial viability – the pc has concerns over the financial viability of any business on this site.  The holding only consists of 15 acres, which cannot be grazed for 4-6 months of the year.  Do the financial accounts and business plan contain realistic figures which both support the construction of a dwelling and the provision of a living wage thereafter?

Security – the pc is unaware of any security issues in the area.

Notice on site – no planning application site notice has been displayed.

Non-local support – many letters of support are from non-locals. One contains an incorrect address – the signatory does not live at the address stated.

Siting of temporary dwelling – the siting of the proposed temporary dwelling is remote from the building where agricultural activities will take place.  It should be sited within sight and sound of the activities.

Size – the size of the temporary dwelling seems excessive for a 15-acre holding.  If MDDC is minded to approve the application perhaps the applicant could install a smaller touring caravan and make use of the existing on-site facilities in the worker’s restroom with water, toilet and heating.

Need to live on site – the applicants live within 0.5 miles of the site.  Perhaps any need might be met by utilising technology providing up-to-date information as mentioned in the planning statement?

Independent agricultural consultant to appraise – CPC strongly advises that MDDC employs the expertise of an agricultural consultant (as many other LPAs do) to review the application, to confirm the facts and figures provided are accurate and support a temporary agricultural worker’s dwelling.

AONB – it must be remembered that the site is in within an AONB.  If planning permission is easily obtained in the open countryside then this may set an unwelcome precedent.  Only genuine agricultural need should justify such dwellings.

Does the applicant need to complete an ecology report? Bat survey?

Incubators – The pc understands that incubators are fully automatic and data may be passed from them directly to a computer/phone.  Therefore, is there an agricultural justification to be on site 24/7?

If the planning officer is minded to approve the application under delegated authority then the pc wishes to call the application to be decided by the planning committee.

PROPOSAL:  the pc does not support the application for the reasons given above.

PROPOSED:    Mrs Weekes

SECONDED:   Mr Blackmore

DECISION: passed (all in favour).  Mr Drew abstained from voting.

Mrs Weekes suggested that the pc complains to MDDC that it fails to take into account comments made by the pc.  Councillor Clist will report back to MDDC.  It was suggested that it might be advisable to arrange for a planning officer to attend a future council meeting, when the council is once again able to meet face-to-face.

SC

5.1  Income, expenditure & bank reconciliation

FINANCE

EXPENDITURE

BANK RECONCILIATION                                                                      

PROPOSAL:  The above cheques/payments are paid.

PROPOSED:    Mr Drew

SECONDED:   Mr King

DECISION: passed (all in favour)

Full council meeting on Monday 8^th April at 7.30pm (By Zoom)