Agenda item

Councillor Jerry Patterson had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration.

It was noted that an appeal against the refusal of permission for a temporary dwelling on this site in 2002 had been dismissed by the Planning Inspector.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to Section 5 of the report which referred to PPS7 and set out the criteria to be considered.  It was noted that an Independent Agricultural Consultant believed that the 3 criteria were met in this case.

Further to the report, the Officers reported the receipt of an additional three letters of objection which repeating concerns relating to matters already referred to in the report and also raised concerns regarding a commercial use in a residential area which it was considered should be investigated.  The Officers clarified that there was an alleged unauthorised development on the site which was being investigated by the Council’s Enforcement Officer.

The Officers reported that they believed that a case had been made for a temporary dwelling at the present time but that this would need to be reviewed in the future.

It was noted that there had been concern regarding the use of the three mobile homes on the site and it was reported that a Section 106 obligation would be entered into to ensure that the units were used for one dwelling only.  The Committee was advised that agreement to delegated authority to the Deputy Director to grant planning permission and to agree the 106 obligation was now being sought.

Mr Hugh Smith a resident of Lincombe Lane made a statement representing other residents objecting to the application raising concerns regarding it not having been proven that the farm was viable; the proposal being no different to any other small business; the alleged income of £60,000 which could be made from growing water cress but that this did not require someone to live at the site; the main crop being nettles which had not been mentioned in the Plan; the previous positioning of poly tunnels on the site with only one remaining and the whole site being a mess. He commented that in 2001 it had been stated that there was no availability at a nearby caravan site but there was space now; there was concern regarding the intention of the applicant; the land was used by Kingerlee Construction Vehicles; there were three other adults living on the site and that a commune was being established.

Mr Richard Stevens, a representative of the Oxford Preservation Trust also made a statement objecting to the application commenting that there was no sign of cattle or agriculture on the site.  He reported that the RSPCA had been called and that the situation on site was regrettable.  He advised that an enforcement notice had been ignored and he urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Mrs Kingerlee, the applicant made a statement in support of the application.  She drew Members’ attention to the Agricultural Consultants report in respect of profit and explained that she had tried various business models.  She reported that farming was very difficult and that she had tried to come up with a number of farming methods to make the business viable.  She reported that she had the skills necessary to take the farm forward and to make it a success.  She explained that she had started schemes in the past which unfortunately had not been successful.  However, she emphasised that she believed in what she was doing and that she was not running a commune.  She explained that volunteers had been working on the farm. She reported that she was carrying out organic farming and that she had sold her house in order to carrying on with this.  She reported that her husband had left her because of this project and whilst the land was visited by Kingerlee Construction Vehicles it was not used for any purpose associated with that business.  She emphasised that there were no hidden reasons for putting forward this application and that her cows we located at a site in South Hinksey because she did not have grass on the Farm at the moment.  Finally, she repeated that she just wanted to do what she believed in.

One Member made reference to the three mobile homes on site and the need to ensure that they were used for one dwelling. It was explained that the accommodation was for a family unit. 

Another Member highlighted that the accommodation was proposed to be occupied by seasonal workers and he questioned as to what extent this was acceptable in a single family unit.  He was concerned that a hostel would result and that it would be difficult to control this in planning terms.  The Officers clarified that a number of unrelated people could live together in a single unit sharing facilities and that the test was the interdependency within the property.

In response to a comment made regarding whether volunteers were employees the Officers clarified that condition 2 set out in the report would be amended to reflect the intention that it related to people engaged on the land at the site.

The Officers confirmed that they were convinced that the applicant could not afford to live somewhere else and work this land.  It was reported that there was no suitable accommodation in the immediate area either to live or rent.

One Member referred to the Consultant’s report commenting that there appeared to be a need although he questioned if the enterprise was likely to be successful. The Member suggested that this was an important issue which should be considered.

One Member referred to the loan mentioned in the Consultant’s report.  However, the Officers reported that the loan was made through a private arrangement and there were aware of the detail and were satisfied with the conclusions reported.

One Member noted that the Consultant’s views were those of an expert and considered that the Committee would be unwise to ignore them.  The Officers confirmed that assessing the tests in PPS7 required a certain level of technical expertise and that was why the views of an expert had been sought.  It was accepted that there were areas of uncertainty and that was why a temporary permission was suggested. It was clarified that the functional test related to the need for on site residence and the financial test related to the profit made.  The applicant would have to show that the business had become profitable after 3 years, when a new application would be required.

Having regard to the advise received some Members considered that a temporary permission was reasonable.

By 11 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions it was

RESOLVED

that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) be delegated authority in consultation with the Chair and / or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee to approve application SUN/16776/2-T subject to conditions and subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement regarding the occupation of the mobile units as a single dwelling.