PLANNING APPRAISAL
for
BATHNES COUNCIL
of
Planning Application No 2014/05866/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
April 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
The applicant confirms that the application is for a permanent dwelling. A
separate application 15/00756/FUL, for the barn referred to in the submitted
evidence was approved on 15th April 2015.
1.3
The application refers to a statutory path diversion, but this is not part of the
application.
1.4
Further evidence was submitted and has been forwarded and assessed below.
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.
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.
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. Permission
has been granted for the proposed livestock building adjacent to the proposed
site of the dwelling.
2.4
Land
2.4.1 197 acres are dedicated to arable, with the rest as grass for grazing and silage.
2.5
Dwellings
2.5.1 The applicant lives at the house at Elm Farm. No other dwellings are
controlled.
2.6
Enterprises and Clarifications
2.6.1 The application presents 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 contradicts this. The assessment therefore takes the whole picture
into account.
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 is not clearly presented. The business plan and other
documents refer to 40 fattening cattle, additional stores bought in to fatten and
sell out, but in interview the applicants described a suckler cow unit,
producing retained calves sold as fattened cattle. There is no evidence for this
latter interpretation, but it does seem odd to buy in pedigree cattle for
fattening.
2.6.4 The confusion is certainly unhelpful and clarity is required, but certainly if
they are to be additional fattening cattle, there is no need for separation from
the main herd of cattle. If it is to be a suckler herd, then some separation is
needed, but not to the extent of requiring a separate yard on an outlying area of
land.
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 a livestock building. There is
no need for that enterprise to be based in this location and doing so would
create an artificial need. The existing yard and any extension to it, could
accommodate the proposed additional enterprise, whether it is for fattening
more store cattle, or establishing a pedigree suckler herd and the existing
house is well placed to satisfy the additional need it would generate. This test
is not achieved.
3.3
Clearly established existing functional need:
Putting aside the fundamental issue at 3.2, the new enterprise does not yet
exist, so there is no existing functional need generated by it.
3.4
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
business plan show a labour requirement for 2.25 workers (there is a
typographical error against the maize figure which should read 1.00, not 100
SMDs). It is accepted that there is 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.
3.5
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
cannot be placed near the existing dwelling.
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.
3.6
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.
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 is presented as a new
enterprise, but it is evidently a potential new venture as part of an established
farm.
4.2
Profitable for at least one. This is indicated in the ‘planning analysis’
document, but no accounts have been submitted. Indeed, the evidence implies
a significant fluctuation in income over the last three years, but no analysis is
possible. This cannot be verified.
4.3
Currently financially sound. For the same reason, this cannot be shown.
4.4
Clear prospect of remaining so. For all the reasons above, there really is no
way of assessing the evidence with any degree of accuracy, so this cannot be
shown either.
5.0
CONCLUSION
5.1
More evidence is required if some or all of the tests are going to be satisfied.