Agenda item

The application was to remove Condition 3 under Section 73 of application ref. BGR/8745 (Outline application to erect nursery managers dwelling and garages) to allow non-agricultural occupancy of dwelling. (Amended plans recv'd 26/10/16)

The application would normally have been determined under the Council's Scheme of Delegation, however, it was reported to Planning Applications Committee at the request of Cllr. Mansfield.

There was a site visit at the site.

Members received the following updates:

‘Paragraph 6.1

Following consultation on the latest marketing undertaken a further 4 letters of objection have been received. The main points raised are summarised below:

• Insufficient period for marketing with it only being marketed for 3 months at its lowered price. Hamptons assertion that 6-12 months is a long time is incorrect as the size, price or unusual nature of the property may mean it takes longer.
• Other factors apart from this restriction also affect its saleability, for example Brexit.
• Marketing is not extensive enough. Should have relied on one than more estate agent to market the property. No estate agent board outside the site and property currently not on UK Land & Farms website.
• The property seems overpriced in relation to other dwellings in the vicinity, particularly when it was first marketed in 2014 (other examples in the area have been provided – 4 bed houses sell for £700 -800k)
• The pricing reduction is insufficient as the industry norm for reduction in pricing on houses with agricultural restrictions with less than 20-30 acres is 35%
• No mention of NHBC guarantee on house being sold which is unusual and thus reduces its saleability
• Other independent valuations ought to have been carried out by the Council and its Agricultural Advisor
• An inability to sell because the applicant built and further extended the property over and above the size and price that an agricultural worker could reasonably afford should not be a reason to remove the condition

[Officer comment: Even if the dwelling had been completed in the 1970s it may have been subsequently extended by the occupier (s)  and so the same scenario may still exist i.e. seeking to sell a larger property than originally approved]

• Downgrading the restriction to equestrian or somewhat similar may be a workable compromise

[Officer comment: The applicant has not sought to amend the condition but to remove it. Equestrian use for the grazing of horses, working horses on the land or horses for slaughter is agriculture. A downgraded condition would not be justifiable unless an exceptional need could be proven, see paragraph 7.3.1. This is unlikely to be the case]

• Uncertainty over the applicant’s land parcels and whether the applicant is also seeking the removal of the agricultural classification for the adjoining land. If the condition is removed then the adjoining land could be sold off separately leaving it for further future development and harming wildlife.

[Officer comment: The original parcel of land that this restriction related to covered a significant larger area of land, see paragraph 2.1 of report. However, this restriction also applies to, for example, retired farmers Nb. the condition refers to people employed in agriculture in the vicinity. The applicant has also now marketed the adjoining land with the dwelling, see second bullet point paragraph 7.3.6 on page 113. Any future use of the adjoining land would require planning permission and inappropriate development would be resisted given its Green Belt location] 

Further comments from the applicant/Hamptons (paragraph 7.3.6)

In response to the concerns raised the applicant explains the following:

• The property has now been marketed for over 7 months
• It is unsaleable primarily because the location of the property is not known for agricultural properties and therefore the number of buyers looking in this area who can meet the tie is limited
• It is the restriction and not the cost that is making the property unsaleable
• Most of the dwellings sold by Hamptons offers are received within the first 2 months of marketing
• A ‘for sale sign’ is not a pre-requisite of selling a property. The majority of dwellings sold do not have one. 90% of prospective purchasers search on-line
• Fails to accept that 59 potential purchasers is not extensive marketing
• The property is receiving 14 viewings per day on Right-move and a further 22 on Zoopla.
• Our marketing is extensive proven by in the area Hamptons Sunningdale covers between £1 - £5m we have sold the most houses in 2016 (source Rightmove).
• The reference made to the property being worth less than £1m does not take into account that this is a new build and such properties are receiving between 5-10% over second hand properties. This combined with its specification, generous proportions and its locational advantages i.e. being close to the village yet benefiting from an attractive rural location with its garden backing onto fields

Paragraph 7.6.1

The applicant has now reinstated the historical curtilage by erection of a low picket fence.

Recommendation

Amended condition 1:

The residential curtilage is as shown outlined in red on drawing no. 574-P-16-4B and there shall be no enlargement to this curtilage. The existing picket fence, or an equivalent replacement, delineating the northern rear boundary of this residential curtilage shall be retained in perpetuity, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To retain control in the interests of the Green Belt and to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework.’

Officers had recommended approval of the application but some Members were of the opinion that the marketing exercise for the sale of the site had not been adequate.  It was also felt that the proposal was overdevelopment in the Green Belt, was out of character and the applicant had been fully aware of the agricultural condition. It was also noted that a precedent should not be set.  The unlawful siting of a mobile home on the site was also a concern.

Officers advised that the dwelling was lawful in the Green Belt and that an informative would be imposed for the removal of the mobile home following permission being granted for this application.

There was no proposer or seconder for the recommendation to approve the application.

Members considered the reasons for refusal and felt that the marketing strategy had been inadequate and a properly targeted marketing scheme should be carried out for at least 12 months and a realistic price be agreed for the sale. The informative would still be included regarding the removal of the mobile home.

Resolved that application 14/1000 be refused for the reasons set out above, wording to be finalised in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that Cllr Mansfield attended a Parish Council meeting where this application was considered.  He did not take part in any debate and did not vote. The applicant also approached Cllr Mansfield but he did not engage in any discussion about the application.

Note 2

The recommendation to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor David Mansfield and seconded by Councillor Colin Dougan.

Note 3

In accordance with Part 4, Section D, paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to the application was as follows:

Voting in favour of the recommendation to refuse the application:

Councillors Vivienne Chapman, Colin Dougan, Edward Hawkins, Jonathan Lytle, David Mansfield, Max Nelson, Robin Perry, Ian Sams, Pat Tedder, Victoria Wheeler and Valerie White.