Third time unlucky for planning bid

AN Annan farmer’s bid to build a house on his land failed for the third time last week.

John Nelson was initially refused planning permission by Dumfries and Galloway Council to construct a property at Seafield Farm in December last year.

He appealed the decision – but this was also booted out by councillors after they visited the site.

But then Annandale South Councillor Ian Carruthers “called in” the planning application – which meant that council officers couldn’t refuse it outright.

That review was held last week.

However, there were no significant changes to the application and councillors therefore reached the same outcome.

The applicant claimed the property was needed to house a worker, however planning chiefs disputed this and also argued it contravened rules on building in the countryside.

At last week’s committee, planning officer Rachel Lightfoot said: “The applicant has consistently been advised that there is no overriding operational need for a further dwelling in relation to the farm.

“The application is accompanied by a labour report, which outlines a need for two labour units – or people as we call them – in relation to livestock with the remaining identified need contracted out.

“The report notes that the proposed house would be for an unidentified worker, who is not currently employed by the farm, as only one worker is identified as the only labour on the farm. This is the applicant who resides in the farmhouse.”

The planning officer also suggested that a farm worker could reside in Annan, which is less than a mile away from the farm.

She concluded: “The application is recommended for refusal for three reasons. Those being lack of need, unacceptable siting, and loss of good quality agricultural land.”

Councillor Ian Carruthers was not present because he is currently suspended. Instead, he submitted a statement, which was read out: “This is not a straightforward case and given the history of previous applications, I believe it is right that members make the decision collectively and with the benefit of all evidence before them.”

Mr Carruthers argued this particular location was the only option due to flood guidance and was not the applicant’s first choice. He also highlighted the labour report did demonstrate “essential need”.

Despite these arguments, the planning committee agreed to uphold the original refusal.