PLANNING APPRAISAL
for
BATHNES COUNCIL
of
Planning Application No 2015/03021/FUL
Permanent Agricultural Worker’s Dwelling
at
Parcel 5985, Norton Lane, Chew Magna
Applicant: John Hudson
Agent: Martin Parish
Officer: Tessa Hampden
Prepared by:
RICHARD ANSTIS
richard@nstis.com
07908 673367
July 2015
CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION
2.0
DETAILS OF THE HOLDING
3.0
FUNCTIONAL TEST
4.0
FINANCIAL TEST
5.0
CONCLUSION
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Location
Tenure
Buildings
Land
Dwellings
Enterprises and Clarifications
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
John Hudson has applied to Bath & North East Somerset Council for consent
for the proposal and an appraisal has been requested by the Council to
examine the need of the proposal in accordance with planning policies.
1.2
An application for an agricultural barn at the site 15/00756/FUL was approved
on 15th April 2015, but has not been implemented.
1.3
This application is a re-submission of the withdrawn application
14/05866/FUL and reference is made to the submission and assessment of that
application in this assessment.
2.0
DETAILS OF THE HOLDING
2.1
Location
2.1.1 The site is in a rural location approximately 2 miles north of Stanton Drew and
around 1.5 miles (direct) from the house and yard at Elm Farm referred to
below and shown on the holding map submitted with the application.
2.2
Tenure
2.2.1 48 acres around the site are owned by the applicant and run in partnership
between the applicant and his wife, but the land is only an outlying part of the
main farm, Elm Farm at Stanton Drew, being 190 acres, including a
substantial yard and a dwelling, with a further 100 acres rented on an FBT
near the hamlet of Newtown, all shown on the holding map.
2.3
Buildings
2.3.1 The substantial yard at Stanton Drew meets and exceeds the needs of the
existing livestock and other requirements of the farm as a whole. The agent
states that the yard only meets the current need, but this is not accepted,
especially when taking into account the permitted building at the site, if it
were used for storage, which indeed is part of the proposed use of it.
2.3.2 It is noted that in the D&A Statement, the justification for the dwelling is
given as “to maximise the agricultural efficiency of the site and provide
security for the agricultural storage.”
2.4
Land
2.4.1 197 acres are dedicated to arable, with the rest as grass for grazing and silage
(80 acres).
2.5
Dwellings
2.5.1 The applicant lives at the existing worker’s dwelling at Elm Farm, which
satisfies the need of the yard there. No other dwellings are owned or rented by
the applicant.
2.6
Enterprises and Clarifications
2.6.1 In the earlier application, the application presented only the 48 acres and only
the proposed 40 head of cattle as a justification for the dwelling, but the
business plan and other evidence that was submitted contradicted this. This
application takes in the whole farm.
2.6.2 The farm as a whole has two existing livestock enterprises, being 230 store
cattle bought in and sold out each year for fattening and 250 ewes agisted
(owned by others and just grazed on the land) each year. 197 acres of maize
and cereals are also harvested with 80 acres of silage. All of this is carried out
from and at the main yard.
2.6.3 The proposed enterprise was not clearly presented in the earlier application,
but it is now clarified as a proposed 40 head pedigree suckler cow unit
creating progeny for fattening only, not breeding (initially at least), with
additional stores possibly bought in to fatten and sell too. It is not clarified
why a pedigree herd is to be selected if the aim is to produce beef rather than
pedigree stock, or why the separation for disease is not compromised if
additional stores are bought in.
3.0
FUNCTIONAL TEST
3.1
Agricultural or Forestry Enterprise:
The existing and proposed enterprises are qualifying enterprises.
3.2
Essential Need:
The NPPF requires the need for on-site accommodation to be more than just
desirable. In this case, the applicant proposes a new enterprise on the owned
land, where permission has just been granted for an agricultural building.
3.3
The need for a dwelling is presented because the management choice being
proposed is for a pedigree herd (even though there is no immediate intention to
benefit from this distinction), where (as of December 2014) the breed had not
even been decided and the building not started, so cannot be considered
‘reasonably likely to materialise’.
3.4
The fact that badgers (but not TB) are present at Elm Farm, but not at the
proposed site is noted. Badgers exist in many parts of the countryside and on
many farms. The risk of TB (with or without badgers) at any farm is noted.
The advantage of having two herds separated so that if one is infected the
other may not be quarantined is noted and the need for a suckler herd to be
separated (in terms of not being in the same building) is also noted, but none
of this supports the tenet that a functional need exists as a result of a planned
enterprise that is evidently unnecessary.
3.5
The degree of separation for a suckler herd does not need to be on separate
land holdings, or to this degree. There is no management need for this farm to
create a suckler herd at all if it creates an artificial need for a dwelling. There
is no management rationale for creating a pedigree herd, to sell the progeny as
beef, just so that the management need for supervision is increased. The
supporting appraisal suggests the labour requirement to fatten purchased store
cattle is the same as for the suckler cow herd, so why have the suckler herd?
3.6
The new building is not started so could be relocated back to Elm Farm, if
indeed it is even needed to accommodate further store cattle. The presented
need for on-site accommodation at the proposed site to address an artificial
need that is merely planned is unjustified. There is no need for even that
chosen suckler herd enterprise to be based in this location and doing so would
create an artificial need. There is no clear management need for the suckler
herd either, when simply adding further store cattle for fattening at Elm Farm
would have a similar impact on the business (according to the agents).
3.7
The existing yard and any extension to it, could accommodate the proposed
additional enterprise, whether it is for fattening bought-in store cattle, or
establishing (for whatever reason) a pedigree suckler herd and the existing
house is well placed to satisfy the additional need it would generate. To
present a proposed suckler herd and then also suggest that additional stores
would also be bought in to the same site makes a nonsense of the presented
argument for separation.
3.8
It appears that this enterprise has been conceived in order to create an
additional need at a location where any need cannot be satisfied by the existing
dwelling, when there are many other management choices that would not
require that.
3.9
Clearly established existing functional need:
Putting aside the multiple and fundamental issues above, the new enterprise
does not yet exist and cannot be said to be reasonably likely to materialise, so
there is no existing functional need generated from it.
3.10
Full time worker:
Since this is a permanent dwelling application, little weight can be afforded to
intended expansion (the new enterprise). The labour statistics provided in the
(earlier) business plan show a labour requirement for 2.25 workers. It is still
accepted that there would be sufficient labour requirement for 2 full time
workers. This is of course not the same as accepting that there is a need for
both of those workers to be available at most times out of necessity.
3.11
Other dwelling – suitable and available (HG10 must show that
accommodation in the hamlet or other settlements is not feasible):
Insufficient evidence is submitted to show why the existing dwelling where
the applicant lives and which is both suitable and available to satisfy that need,
or indeed other dwellings locally, cannot be used to satisfy any existing need.
Insufficient evidence is presented to show why the proposed new enterprise is
necessary and if so, why it cannot be placed near the existing dwelling, whilst
still being sufficiently separated from the other existing livestock buildings,
especially since the permitted barn has not yet been implemented, so could be
relocated, or simply used for storage to relieve other buildings in the yard for
livestock accommodation.
The applicant (in fact both Mr and Mrs Hudson) have clarified that they are
not intending to retire from farming soon and that the proposed new dwelling
is for a new worker, because the employed labourer is retiring.
3.12
Other planning requirements:
The form indicates a dwelling of ‘four plus’ bedrooms, on a site of 75sqm,
with four car parking spaces. If a need were proven for a second dwelling on
this farm, a net internal area of no more than 150sqm might be commensurate
with the needs of the business and holding. The plans appear to indicate a
building of around 250sqm, which firstly is excessive and secondly would not
appear capable of fitting onto a site area of 75sqm. Clarification and
explanation is required to justify this size of dwelling as a second dwelling to
the farm.
4.0
FINANCIAL TEST
4.1
Established for at least three years – it can be accepted that the farm has been
established for at least three years. The application was presented as a new
enterprise, but has been adjusted now to take in the whole farm and it is
evidently a potential new venture as part of an established farm.
4.2
Profitable for at least one. No audited (or unaudited) accounts are presented,
only account summaries by the agent. These show historic accounts and only
one of the last three years show a profit, but the test is satisfied.
4.3
Currently financially sound. Over the four years shown, there has been a near
doubling of livestock and crop turnover, but a corresponding increase in
variable costs, together with increases in fixed costs, have had the effect of a
fairly neutral impact on profits, except that the increased scale means that
market fluctuations have a more dramatic impact. The result is a fluctuating
picture. The fixed costs show a ‘labour/casual labour’ figure that represents
the casual labour cost and the salary of the existing second farm worker (who
does not live on site and is shortly to retire and be replaced by an equivalent
farm worker), so the first farm worker (the applicant) takes his salary from the
net profits. However, in only one year of the four presented is there sufficient
profit to satisfy the minimum wage for the primary worker. This is certainly
not a situation that could be described as ‘currently financially sound’, putting
aside the additional strain on the business from building a second dwelling.
4.4
Clear prospect of remaining so. There are no recent accounts (the last one
ending on 31st January 2013, so the last two years of accounts are not shown)
and no forward projections, so this cannot be satisfied.
5.0
CONCLUSION
5.1
Many of the required tests are not satisfied.