Planning Committee
AREA
West Area
PARISH
Honingham
4
APPLICATION NO:
20050865
TG REF:
LOCATION OF SITE
Ridge Farm, Honingham
DESCRIPTION OF
DEVELOPMENT
Farmworker’s cottage (outline)
APPLICANT
Mr R J Plumridge
AGENT
N/A
Date Received: 8 June 2005
8 Week Expiry Date: 3 August 2005
1
THE PROPOSAL
1.1
This application seeks outline consent for a farm workers cottage on an existing
and well established pig farm. Access to the site is proposed via the existing
entrance to the farm and it is proposed to site the dwelling in the eastern part of
the farm. The external appearance and design of the proposed dwelling and
the landscaping of the site are all reserved matters.
1.2
The farm covers an area of some 3.9ha and the applicant hires a further 6ha, a
short distance away.
1.3
The applicant has submitted information in support of his application. He states
that he has been rearing breeding sows from the site for some 25 years and
employs one full time worker in addition to his son who lives in the existing
farmhouse on the site and who now needs independent accommodation.
1.4
The applicant states the existing operation involves rearing the progeny from
250 sows to 35 – 40kg, which are then sold and grown on to 95kg. He wishes to
add value to the operation and plans to do this by rearing the pigs to 95kg
himself and selling them direct to the consumer. He states that retaining the
progeny from 250 sows will increase the number of pigs on the unit at any one
time by about 1500. The applicant states that little capital investment would be
needed to implement this change in the way the business operates. It is
proposed to rear the pigs in a free-range manner which is labour intensive. The
applicant’s longer term plans include the production of wild boar, running a
small herd alongside the existing pig herd and gradually increasing numbers
linked to demand.
20050865 : Ridge Farm, Honingham
5 October 2005
Planning Committee
1.5
The applicant states that the first stage of the business plan is to secure a
skilled stockman for the extra labour input required. To meet this, the applicant
is taking his son into the business on a full time basis to take over day to day
management of the herd, together with the existing full time stockman. The
applicant considers it vital to provide on farm independent accommodation for
his stock people both for the farm to continue and for it to expand/diversify. To
develop the business, the applicant envisages that he will concentrate his time
on the management and development of the business.
1.6
Supporting information from the Norfolk Rural Business Advice Service notes
that Ridge Farm has made consistent profits and advises the applicant to follow
his development path for his business.
2
CONSULTATIONS
2.1
Honingham Parish Council:
No objection.
2.2
Highway Authority:
No objection providing there is a genuine need for an agricultural dwelling.
2.3
Environment Agency:
Advisory comments.
2.4
Environmental Health Officer:
No objection
3
PUBLICITY
3.1
Site Notice:
Expiry date 15 July 2005.
3.2
Neighbour notification:
Norwood, Telegraph Hill, Honingham. Expiry date 13 July 2005.
4
REPRESENTATIONS
4.1
None received.
20050865 : Ridge Farm, Honingham
5 October 2005
Planning Committee
5
RELEVANT POLICY GUIDANCE
5.1
PPS1
Sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable
development through the planning system.
5.2
PPS7
Sets out the Government’s objectives for planning in rural areas including the
key principles of sustainable development.
Broadland District Local Plan:
5.3
Policy GS1
New development will normally be accommodated within the development
boundaries. Outside these boundaries, development proposals will not be
permitted unless they comply with a specific allocation and/or policy of the Plan.
5.4
Policy HOU5
Residential development outside of development boundaries will not normally
be given unless connected with agriculture, forestry, organised recreation or
tourist facilities or the expansion of existing institutions, subject to a number of
criteria.
5.5
Policy ENV7
Protects the inherent visual qualities of Areas of Important Landscape Quality
and may permit development appropriate to the general location where it is not
detrimental to the character, scenic quality or visual benefit of the area.
5.6
Policy TRA4
Development will not be permitted where it would endanger highway safety or
the satisfactory functioning of the local highway network. In appropriate cases,
a traffic impact study will be required.
Revised Deposit Version Broadland District Local Plan:
5.7
Policy (RD)GS1
New development will only be accommodated within the settlement limits for the
Norwich fringe parishes, market towns and villages. Outside these limits,
20050865 : Ridge Farm, Honingham
5 October 2005
Planning Committee
development proposals will not be permitted unless they comply with a specific
allocation and/or policy of the Plan.
5.8
Policy (RD)HOU6
Outside of the settlement limits, planning permission for new residential
development will not be given, unless connected with agriculture, forestry,
organised recreation or tourist facilities.
5.9
Policy (RD)ENV8
Protects the inherent visual qualities and distinctive character of Areas of
Landscape Value. Development will only be permitted where this is not
detrimental to the character, scenic quality or visual benefit of the area.
5.10
Policy (RD)TRA11
Development will not be permitted where it would endanger highway safety or the
satisfactory functioning of the local highway network.
6
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE
6.1
The site is located approximately mid way between Honingham and Weston
Longville some 2.5km north of the A47 (T) road. To the east of the site is the
established pig farm and the applicant’s modern two storey dwelling. Immediately
to the west of the site is a water tower. Opposite the site is an isolated single
residential property, although this is set well back from the road frontage.
7
PLANNING HISTORY
7.1
83.1843:
Residential caravan. Approved October 1983.
7.2
85.0017:
Dwelling (Agricultural). Approved February 1985
7.3
85.1276:
Resiting of approved dwelling. Approved September 1985.
7.4
20041339:
Pair of semi-detached farm workers cottages. Refused September 2004.
20050865 : Ridge Farm, Honingham
5 October 2005
Planning Committee
8
APPRAISAL
8.1
The main issues to take into account in the determination of this application are
the policies of the Local Plan and Government guidance on the provision of new
houses in the countryside and the planning history.
8.2
With regards to the planning history of the site, a previous application
(20041339) for a pair of semi-detached farm workers’ cottages was refused on
the grounds that the proposal was contrary to PPS7 and HOU5. There was
insufficient justification for an additional two dwellings, particularly as the
applicant already lived in an agricultural dwelling on the farm. The existing
dwelling was considered to meet the functional needs of the enterprise.
Furthermore, the proposed dwellings were being applied for in connection with
a proposed expansion, not the existing operation. As the proposed expansion
had not occurred, no justification for additional dwellings existed.
8.3
With regards to the relevant planning policies, the site lies in open countryside
where there is a presumption against new residential development. Policy GS1
states that outside these boundaries development proposals will not be
permitted unless they comply with a specific allocation and/or policy of the plan.
8.4
The site is not allocated for any specific use, although there is a policy relevant
to this proposal. Policy HOU5 is concerned with proposals for residential
development outside the development boundaries. It states that permission
may be given for dwellings connected with agriculture if it can be demonstrated
that:-
8.5
(a)
There is a proven need on the site (in the case of new enterprises the
need may be tested by requiring the temporary location of a residential
caravan on the site)
(b)
Such dwellings are of an appropriate size and are sited in close proximity
to existing buildings wherever possible
(c)
There is no appropriate alternative accommodation existing or with
planning permission, available either on the holding or in the near
vicinity.
Policy HOU5 draws on advice in PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural
Areas. This states that new permanent dwellings should only be allowed to
support existing agricultural activities on well established agricultural units,
providing there is a clearly established existing functional need. A functional test
is necessary to establish whether it is essential for the proper functioning of the
enterprise for one or more workers to be readily available at most times. Such a
requirement might arise, for example, if workers are needed to be on hand day
and night in case animals or agricultural processes require essential care at
short notice.
20050865 : Ridge Farm, Honingham
5 October 2005
Planning Committee
8.6
PPS7 states that new permanent accommodation cannot be justified on
agricultural grounds unless the farming enterprise is economically viable. A
financial test is necessary for this purpose and to provide evidence of the size
of dwelling which the unit can sustain.
8.7
PPS7 also states that if a new dwelling is essential to support a new farming
activity, whether on a newly created agricultural unit or an established one, it
should normally, for the first three years, be provided by a caravan, a wooden
structure which can easily be dismantled, or other temporary accommodation.
8.8
The applicant currently employs one full-time stockman and his wife currently
works part-time, mainly on the administrative side. The applicant’s farm covers
approximately 3.9ha and he rents a further 6ha a short distance away.
8.9
In order to assess this proposal, the District Council commissioned an
independent appraisal of the planning application. The appraisal considered the
following issues:
1.
The need for an additional cottage
2.
Consideration of the size of the farm, in particular the land that is owned
and that which is leased.
3.
Whether the holding and business support an additional dwelling.
4.
Whether a business of this size would normally support two cottages.
5.
Whether any changes in legislation or guidance have been made in
respect of the keeping and rearing of livestock that would make a second
dwelling necessary.
8.10
The Council’s independent appraisal considers that currently, the health and
welfare requirements of the herd can be satisfied with the existing
accommodation available on the farm. With regard to the proposed future need,
there is no reason stated why this cannot also be reasonably met within the
existing accommodation. Farm units of a comparable size and nature to this
farm would not require a second dwelling. Herd security requirements are
already met with the existing dwelling and it is questionable whether a second
dwelling would provide better security, particularly if parts of the herd were to be
reared on off-lying land. On this basis, it is clear that the functional requirement
for an additional dwelling is not being met.
8.11
It is noted in the Council’s independent appraisal that the stockman employed
on the farm has been in position for 14 years and so is presumably happy to
continue to commute to the farm. The additional stockman to be employed will
be the applicant’s son and therefore, it is not unreasonable to argue that he
could not be housed in the existing dwelling.
20050865 : Ridge Farm, Honingham
5 October 2005
Planning Committee
8.12
The applicant owns a limited amount of land, 3.9 ha and rents a further 6ha
nearby. However, the additional information in support of the application shows
only an additional 1.62 ha of land being rented. In addition, it is not clear under
what type of tenancy the additional land is rented. If it is a Farm Business
Tenancy then there is no security of tenure beyond the length of the agreement.
Unless the agreement is for a fixed term in excess of 15 years, it would not be a
sound basis upon which to expand the business, given the ratio of owner
occupied land to land rented.
8.13
The Council’s independent appraisal states that the applicant’s business plan
would support the cost of an additional dwelling although further information is
required to verify the assertion that an additional 1500 pigs will be on the
holding at any one time. It is also unlikely that the farm could manage a
stocking density of this magnitude on a free range or outdoor system without an
additional stockman who would be required to effectively manage the increased
throughput of pigs. However, the accommodation needs of the individual could
be met through other means and not necessarily through the erection of a
further dwelling on the farm. The Council’s independent appraisal considers that
the business plan presents a good case for an additional full time worker but
that the case made does not relate to an existing need of the business.
8.14
PPS7 sets a functional test and a financial test for new agricultural dwellings.
With regards to the functional test, the guidelines laid down by PPS7 state that
there must be a “clearly established existing functional need” for a permanent
agricultural workers dwelling. The proposals outlined by the applicant in Section
1 relate to a future functional need for further accommodation on the farm. It is
clear from this information and the Council’s independent appraisal that the
applicant’s case for a new dwelling rests on a proposed expansion of the
business and not on an existing need of the business. It is considered therefore,
that this proposal is clearly contrary to PPS7 and the functional test for a new
dwelling has not been met. Furthermore, given the Council’s independent
appraisal, it is considered that there is serious doubt that a farm holding of
3.9ha could support 2 dwellings, particularly as parts of the herd are reared on
land rented by the applicant.
8.15
With regards to the financial test, the Rural Business Advisors report states that
the existing business is solvent and has turned a profit in the three years up to
2004. However, it is also clear that in terms of the financial test, the figures
supplied relate to the proposed development of the business and not the
current business. Accordingly therefore, this does not accord with the advice in
PPS7 and it is considered that the financial test has not been met.
8.16
PPS7 states that where proposals for new dwellings are made in connection
with a new farming activity the dwelling should initially be provided in temporary
accommodation (para 8.7). The proposal which is for a cottage, is therefore
also clearly contrary to PPS7 in this regard. Proposals should initially be in the
form of temporary accommodation to prevent the creation of permanent new
dwellings in the countryside should, for whatever reason, the new venture fail.
Temporary accommodation can easily be removed should it no longer be
required.
20050865 : Ridge Farm, Honingham
5 October 2005
Planning Committee
8.17
However, given that it is considered that there is neither a functional or financial
need for a second dwelling on the farm, it is considered that it would not be
appropriate to provide temporary accommodation on the site.
8.18
In addition to considering the functional and financial tests, consideration also
needs to be given to the impact of the proposed dwelling on the character and
appearance of the surrounding countryside. The site falls within an Area of
Important Landscape Quality as defined by Policy ENV7 of the Local Plan and
Policy (RD)ENV8 of the proposed replacement Local Plan. Notwithstanding the
fact there is an existing water tower close to the site, the predominate character
of the area is one of undeveloped countryside. A dwelling on the site would be a
discordant element that would be harmful to the open and rural character that
prevails. Policy ENV7 (and (RD)ENV8) states that the inherent visual qualities
of these areas will be protected. Development appropriate to the general
location may be permitted but only where this is not detrimental to the
character, scenic quality or visual benefit of the area. Given that it is considered
that there is no justification for a dwelling on the site it is considered that the
proposed dwelling would not be appropriate to this location. Accordingly
therefore, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policies ENV7 and
(RD)ENV8.
8.19
The Highway Authority are of the view that unless there is a genuine agricultural
need for a dwelling it would recommend that the application be refused on the
grounds that the unclassified road serving the site is inadequate, due to its
restricted width and inadequate visibility splays at the entrance to the site.
8.20
This application is reported to Committee at the request of the Ward Member.
RECOMMENDATION:
(1)
REFUSE for the following reasons:
There are strict controls over the granting of planning permission for new
dwellings in the countryside. Government guidance in Planning Policy
Statement (PPS) 7 makes it clear that isolated new houses in the countryside
require special justification for planning permission to be granted. One of the
few circumstances in which isolated residential development may be justified is
when accommodation is required to enable agricultural, forestry and certain
other full-time workers to live at or in the immediate vicinity of their place of
work. This guidance aims to protect the character and appearance of the
countryside by preventing unnecessary and unsustainable forms of
development. In particular PPS7 requires a functional and financial test to be
met in support of existing agricultural activities on well-established agricultural
units. This Government Planning Guidance is reflected in Policies GS1 and
HOU5 of the Broadland District Local Plan and Policy (RD)HOU6 of the
proposed Replacement Broadland District Local Plan.
20050865 : Ridge Farm, Honingham
5 October 2005
Planning Committee
(2)
The applicant already lives in a dwelling on the farm. An agricultural dwelling
was permitted in 1985 (Ref. 85.0017) to meet the functional needs of the
enterprise. PPS7 states that there must be “a clearly established existing
functional need” for a permanent agricultural workers dwelling. The proposals
outlined by the applicant relate to a future functional need for further
accommodation on the farm. This need has not been accepted. Similarly, with
regards to the financial test, the figures supplied relate to the development of
the business and not the current business. Accordingly therefore, the functional
and financial tests have not been met and the proposal is contrary to PPS7 and
Policies GS1 and HOU5 of the Local Plan and (RD)HOU6 of the Revised
Deposit Local Plan.
(3)
The applicants farm holding covers approximately 3.9ha and it is considered
that the existing dwelling meets the functional need for a dwelling on the site. It
is considered that the relatively small size of the farm does not justify a second
dwelling on the site. Accordingly therefore, the proposal is considered to be
contrary to PPS7 and Policies HOU5 of the Local Plan and (RD)HOU6 of the
Revised Deposit Local Plan.
(4)
The site lies within an Area of Important Landscape Quality as defined by Policy
ENV7 of the Local Plan and within an area of Landscape Value by Policy
(RD)ENV8 of the Revised Deposit Local Plan. The proposed dwelling would be
harmful to the predominantly rural character and appearance of the area
contrary to Policies ENV7 and (RD)ENV8.
(5)
The unclassified road serving the site is considered to be inadequate to serve
the development proposed, by reason of its restricted width/lack of passing
provision and also restricted visibility at the adjacent road junctions. The
proposal, if permitted, would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to
highway safety contrary to Policy TRA2 of the Broadland District Local Plan and
Policy (RD)TRA11 of the Revised Deposit Local Plan.
(6)
Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the access with the
County highway and this would cause danger and inconvinience to users of the
adjoining public highway contrary to Policy TRA2 of the Broadland District Local
Plan and Policy (RD)TRA11 of the Revised Deposit Local Plan.
20050865 : Ridge Farm, Honingham
5 October 2005