Agenda item

It was noted that Councillor A. Bailes returned to the meeting room prior to the consideration of this item.

The Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor A. Bailes, Ward Councillor.

Officers highlighted that page 4 of the Committee Update detailed the reasons for amending Conditions 4, 5 and 6; and ultimately the Revised Conditions 4, 5 and 6.

A copy of the Committee Update was provided to Members and published on the Council’s website prior to the commencement of the meeting.

Officers presented the report and presentation slides, as detailed on pages 90 to 97 of the main agenda pack. The application sought planning permission for the retention of an existing barn, alterations to the site's access, and the temporary provision of a rural worker's dwelling using the existing on-site mobile home.

The site was located within the Green Belt, a protected area. The proposal also included reducing the fencing to 1 metre in height, along the southern boundary with Storrage Lane, in order to align with permitted development allowances.

Already existing onsite was a hardstanding, an agricultural barn, a caravan, Portaloo and fencing along the southern boundary with Storrage Lane. These structures did not currently benefit from planning permission.

Members were further informed that planning permission was granted on site (reference 19/00009/FUL) for an agricultural building. The building had an open bay and was proposed to store farm machinery, agricultural sundries and temporary livestock accommodation and the open section would be used primarily for the storage of hay. The existing barn onsite subject to this planning application was not built in accordance with the approved 2019 permission and as such had no permission or fallback.

The Applicants now intended to use the land and building to establish a herd of 25 Breeding Female Alpacas and a small flock of 200 laying hens and would also produce some hay to sell on. The intentions on site were for the breading and rearing of alpacas for sale, the sale of alpaca yarn and products and poop.

The Applicants had submitted photographs showing that the building was being used for agricultural purposes. They also sought to explain why the building was insulated stating that "insulation has also been installed in the roof of the agricultural building to regulate the temperature so that the condition in the roof of the chicken feed, eggs and egg boxes can be regulated." Although the Council were of the view that internally the building had been over engineered, it was clear that it could be used for the purposes put forward under this application and internal work could be carried out without planning permission. Taking all of this onto consideration, in this case, on balance the design of the building alone was not reason for refusing the application.

As highlighted in the report, it was the for the applicants to share the workload and retain the ability to live on the holding to properly manage and monitor the processes and livestock on the unit. The Council accepted the need to live onsite when looking after alpacas as unlike sheep and cattle, their birthing patterns could be much less predictable, and the crias (baby alpaca) needed very close supervision. However, the Council were required to consider a functional need, potential use of existing dwellings, financial sustainability and siting and size.

Officers drew Members’ attention to the ‘Financial sustainability,’ as detailed on pages 84 and 85 of the main agenda pack.  

New buildings in the Green Belt were considered to be inappropriate development subject to a closed list of exceptions as outlined in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The relevant exception in this case is 154(a) which allowed for buildings for agriculture and forestry.

In this case, the agricultural enterprise had been justified on a temporary basis whilst the budgets were tested. Further permission would be required in three years for continued use living on the site. In such time, the proposed business would have had the opportunity to establish itself and its future success clearer so that a view could be taken on whether thus complied with planning policy.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Ms. S. Rafferty, one of the applicants addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Members then considered the application.

In response to questions from Sub-Committee Members, officers explained that should the alpaca enterprise cease to exist after the three year period, a condition (Condition 2) had been included, as detailed on page 87 of the main agenda pack that,

‘The caravan hereby permitted shall be occupied only by Mr Jack Allison and Ms. Samantha Rafferty and any associated family dependents for their use in the management of the alpaca enterprise at Oak Tree Farm, Storrage Lane, Alvechurch, Worcestershire and shall be for a period of three years from the date of this decision.’  

With regard to the functional need and the short fall of hectares available for the alpacas to graze on, resulting in some of the alpacas being grazed away from the main holding; officers explained that they would not actively monitor this.  However, animal welfare was covered under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

On being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be granted, subject to

a)    Conditions 1, 2 and 3, as detailed on pages 87 and 88 of the main agenda pack; and

the following Revised Conditions

4)  that the caravan hereby permitted shall be occupied only by Mr. Jack

Allison and Ms. Samantha Rafferty and any associated family

dependents for their use in the management of the alpaca enterprise at

Oak Tree Farm, Storrage Lane, Alvechurch, Worcestershire and shall

be for a period of three years from the date of this decision.

Reason - The permission relates to a single caravan and the justification for

an agricultural workers dwelling had been made on these grounds.

5)  that the barn building hereby approved shall be used solely for

agricultural purposes and for no other use whatsoever. If the use of the

barn for the purposes of agricultural within the unit permanently ceased

within 10 years from the date of this consent, then unless the local

planning authority had otherwise agreed in writing, the caravan and/or

building must be removed from the land and the land must, so far as was

practicable, be restored to its condition before any development within

the application site took place, or to such condition as may had been

agreed in writing between the local planning authority and the developer.

Reason: To ensure the building onsite was only used for an agricultural

purpose as proposed.

6) Surface water from the development shall discharge to soakaway

drainage designed to cope with a 1 in 100 year event plus 40%

allowance for climate change. If it emerged that infiltration drainage was

not possible on this site, an alternative method of surface water disposal

should be submitted for approval. There shall be no increase in runoff

from the site compared to the pre-development situation up to the 1 in

100 year event plus 40% allowance for climate change. An as built plan

shall be provided with proof of installation. The drainage scheme shall

be implemented within 3 months of the decision notice and thereafter

maintained.

Reason – To ensure the site did not result in surface water flooding.