Officer Planning Report

General Report Site Visited: Y / N Unfortunately the microfiche for the detailed approval is half missing so a lot of the critical information is not available. It would seem that after years of reh-sals for a permanent cottage on the site (100s, 48088, 49739, 53498, 51014) the applicant finally managed at Renen to persuade the committee of a erading personal/agricultural circumstances and the application was approved on 11th June 1981 subject to personal occupancy, directing tied to horticultural unit and agricultural worker's occupancy. - tight conditions, one of which the applicant wishes to remove as "the site is not an economically viable market garden". I would presume if it has not already been removed, that the applicant would wish all three of the conditions removed. IT IS NOT THAT THE REST OF THE MICROFICHE IS FOUND BEFORE A DECISION IS TAKEN 800m 9/3 I know Alan Skillen and can confirm that basically he is no longer involved in agriculture although he was originally when house was approved. He is not in the best of health and I think basically wants to sell the house but is needless to say concerned about the agricultural condition. PRN 10/3 The application was submitted, following a letter sent to PC Save months ago requesting removal of condition. The missing microfiche may be with the letter of in Andreas file. Unfortunately this is also missing! PRN Mist the applicant's personal circumstances are unfortunate, it would seem a little unacceptable that, after trying to get approval for a dwelling between 1978 and 1981, after he finally manages to persuade the committee on presumably personal combined with agricultural reasons, the situation changes within 12 years. Bearing in mind that this area is predominantly agricultural, I am unconvinced that there is no agricultural need for a farm area's dwelling in the vicinity - even if the individual site is too small to support a business on its own. 820n16/3 @ 17/3 refuse. The planning committee is not persuaded that, whilst the applicant's personal circumstances have changed, that there is no requirement for an agricultural worker's dwelling in the proposed location. The committee is further not convinced by the site was sufficient to justify the approval of a farm worker's dwelling in conjunction with the site as a nearest small holding, in 1981, why this is no longer the case.