One farm diversification pod at Broomley Farm, Sodston, Narberth

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought to retain one self-catering pod as part of a farm diversification enterprise linked to another farm application.

“Proposal: Retrospective siting of 1 self catering pod as part of a farm diversification enterprise in conjunction with application at Vaynor Farm…”

“The application seeks retrospective planning permission to secure the retention of one self-catering accommodation pod, situated on land at Broomley Farm, Sodston, Narberth.”

Officer report

The site and pod

The pod was in a field north of the farm complex, with a proposed position beside a hedgerow and mature trees near an access track.

“Broomley Farm, combined with Vaynor Farm, Bethesda is a 400 acre, 700 cow dairy farm, located approximately 1 kilometre to the north of the Rural Town of Narberth, 2.1 kilometres to the east and 2.5 kilometres to the south-west of the Service Villages of Robeston Wathen and Clunderwen respectively.”

“Broomley Farm Pod is currently located within a field to the north of the farm complex at Broomley Farm. The application proposes to move the pod immediately adjacent to a hedgerow, containing mature trees, forming the boundary to the north of the farm complex and east of an access track. The field is contained by agricultural land to the north, enclosed by a low post and wire fence, mature trees and hedgerow to the east and south and track to the west.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications for one or two pods were refused because of countryside location, farm diversification, drainage and protected-site concerns.

“The site is located in a countryside location, approximately 1 kilometre from the closest defined settlement of Narberth. The proposal is for a pod and does not relate to an enterprise for which a countryside location is essential and would introduce a new residential development for holiday accommodation in an unsustainable location which is not within or well related to a settlement, or provide a community facility.”

“The site is located in a countryside location, approximately 300 metres from the closest defined settlement of Bethesda. The proposal is for two pods, and does not relate to an enterprise for which a countryside location is essential and would introduce a new residential development for holiday accommodation in an unsustainable location which is not within or well related to a settlement.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to a legal obligation linking the pod to the farm enterprise and conditions controlling holiday use, parking, landscaping and biodiversity.

“It is recommended that delegated power be given to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application subject to the completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation to tie the development to the Vaynor Farm farm enterprise and the imposition of conditions to deal with the following matters:”

“Limit the use and occupation of the self-catering accommodation pods to short term holiday use only; • Retain the vehicular parking and manoeuvring areas associated with each self-catering accommodation pod in perpetuity; • Secure landscaping & biodiversity enhancement.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered that farm income benefits, the proposed siting and wastewater treatment outweighed policy conflicts and would avoid unacceptable landscape or protected-site harm.

“A business plan has been submitted with the application, which explains that due to uncertainties associated with dairy farming, the applicant has sought to diversify the farm enterprise to incorporate tourism accommodation. The application makes the case that the proposed development represents farm diversification.”

“It is proposed to move the pod from its current location, further to the south adjacent to the tree-lined boundary immediately to the north of the Broomley Farm complex. Officers are satisfied that its proposed siting meet the relevant provisions of Policies GN.1 and GN.10 and that no unacceptable harm would arise to the character and appearance of the area as a consequence of the development that would place.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

consultees raised no adverse comments, while one objection challenged the farm link, business details and the use of a retrospective application.

“The planning application is supported by a Drainage Design and Supporting Document for which we have no adverse comments in relation to the methods of surface water disposal for this retrospective application.”

“Pods are not a part of the farm business as they are run independently, proposals are not therefore farm diversification schemes; • Retrospective applications are an abuse of the planning system, increasingly used by large farm businesses so suit themselves.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning officer presented the application, and no public speakers attended.

The committee vote

Councillor John Cole moved approval and Councillor Nick Neumann seconded it; fourteen members voted for, with no votes against or abstentions.

“Approval of the application was Moved by Councillor John Cole; Seconded by Councillor Nick Neumann.”

“For the Motion: Councillors Mark Carter, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [14]”

Minutes

The decision

The committee granted the Head of Planning delegated authority to determine the application.

“That Delegated Authority be granted to the Head of Planning to determine the application.”

Minutes