Case Officer:
K Owen
Site:
Weeke, Modbury, Ivybridge, Devon, PL21 0TT
Application No:
35/0303/02/O
Date Received:
15th February 2002
Agent:
Luscombe Maye Manorside Fore Street South Brent Devon
TQ10 9BQ
Applicant:
Mr & Mrs C A F Rogers
Development:
Outline application for erection of agricultural workers
dwelling
This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the
permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her
Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised
reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution
or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council. LA 079391. 2002
Scale 1:2500
For internal reference only – no further copies to be made
Cttee 01.05.02
DC0901MW
Policies
Countryside
Area of Great Landscape Value
Consultations
Devon County Council – County Highways Authority
Recommend refusal
South West Water
No objections
Environment Agency
No objection
Environmental Health Section
Advise that a private sewage treatment system would provide a better means of sewage
disposal than septic tank and soakaway.
Parish
Modbury Parish Council make the following observations:Support with agricultural tie
.
Case Officer Report
The Proposal and Site description
The site lies within the countryside, outside of a development boundary of a settlement,
and is within an Area of Great Landscape Value. It lies to the south of where the farm
access track to Weeke Farm meets the County highway, which leads from Shilston Barton
to Mary Cross, and is approximately 1.5 kilometres north east of the settlement of
Modbury.
The site measures approximately 30 metres by 30 metres and slopes down towards the
south. It currently forms part of an agricultural field and is unenclosed, except along the
roadside, where it is enclosed by a traditional Devon bank. The site is situated in a small
valley, where the land slopes down to Shilston Brook and up beyond the brook towards
Mary Cross and occupies a visually prominent and exposed location.
The existing farmhouse lies approximately 120 metres to the west of the highway and
there are a variety of farm buildings around the farmhouse and along the access track.
Representations
No letters of representation have been received.
Planning History
No relevant planning history.
Cttee 01.05.02
DC0901MW
Analysis
Policy Context:
The site lies within the countryside where new development is strictly controlled by
Policy S4 of the Structure Plan. Policy H4 of the Structure Plan contains a general
presumption against new residential development in the countryside, with two
exceptions. One such exception is where there is a proven agricultural need for the
dwelling. Policy C6 of the Structure Plan ensures that development in Areas of Great
Landscape Value doe not detract from the particular landscape qualities and
characteristics that have led to the designation of that area.
Local Plan Policy SHDC3 lists dwellings for which there is a proven agricultural need
(provided that existing dwellings on the holding occupied by persons solely or mainly
employed or last employed in agriculture, or their dependants, continue to be so
occupied) as being a form of development that will be permitted in the countryside,
providing that there would be little adverse impact on the character, appearance, wildlife
or amenities of the area.
PPG7 advises that new agricultural dwellings should only be allowed to support existing
agricultural activities on well established agricultural units, providing that 5 criteria are
met. These criteria relate to the following:1. There is a clearly established existing functional need;
2. The need relates to a full-time worker, or one who is primarily employed in
agriculture, and does not relate to a part-time requirement;
3. The unit and the agricultural activity concerned have been established for at least 3
years, have been profitable for at least one of them, are currently financially sound,
and have a clear prospect of remaining so;
4. The functional need could not be fulfilled by another dwelling on the unit, or any
existing accommodation in the area which is suitable and available for occupation by
the workers concerned; and
5. Other normal planning requirements, for example siting and access, are satisfied.
Agricultural Information:
Derek Roberts, agricultural advisor, has been consulted and has provided comments on
the agricultural activities. In brief, the farm consists of 133 hectares of freehold land and
98 hectares of rented land (which is rented on Farm Business Tenancies). The agricultural
activities at the farm consist of 169 dairy cows with 36 in-calf heifers which are due to calf
this spring – all calves are retained for rearing and fattening on the farm and an additional
180 calves are purchased annually for rearing and fattening on the farm; there are 4 bulls
and 50 of the cows are put to top quality Friesian bulls to produce high quality herd
replacements. At any one time there is an average number of 569 cattle at the farm. 28
hectares of the farm are sown to cereals and 16 hectares are own with maize – all the
produce of which is for home consumption, grazing and conservation of winter feed.
Labour Requirement:
There is an estimated total labour requirement at the farm equivalent to in excess of 8 fulltime units. In reality, this is provided by 4 full-time workers – the applicants (Mr & Mrs
Cttee 01.05.02
DC0901MW
Rogers)and their son (John Rogers) who live in the existing farmhouse and a fourth fulltime worker lives away from the farm. It is accepted that the scale and nature of the
enterprise requires 2 full-time workers to be “on-farm”.
Discussion:
With regard to the provisions of PPG7, the application does relate to a full-time worker,
employed in agriculture (criteria (1)) and the financial test is more than adequately
satisfied (criteria (3)). The remaining issues are whether there is an existing functional
need, whether this need could be met by another dwelling on the unit or any other
existing accommodation which suitable and available for occupation by the worker
concerned, and normal planning requirements.
With regard to the functional need, it is accepted that the livestock enterprise of the scale
and nature of Weeke Farm does require 2 workers to be resident on the farm. However,
currently 3 of the 4 full-time workers already live on the farm in the existing traditional 6
bedroomed farmhouse, (the applicants and their son). Therefore, it is considered that
there is no functional need for an additional dwelling. This addresses the fourth criteria
contained in PPG7,( as to whether a functional need could be met by another dwelling on
the unit or any other existing accommodation which suitable and available for occupation
by the worker concerned), as the existing farmhouse already provides suitable
accommodation for 3 of the 4 full-time workers.
The agent for the applicants argues that the functional and financial tests are met and
considers it unreasonable to withhold planning permission for the proposed new
dwelling, as Mr and Mrs Rogers’ son is 25 years old and should not be expected to
continue to live with his parents. The facts of the situation are that the scale and nature of
the livestock enterprise of Weeke Farm does require 2 workers to be resident on the
farm. However, 3 full-time workers already live on the farm. For the foreseeable future,
the farmhouse would continue to provide suitable accommodation for at least 2 of the
workers – Mr and Mrs Rogers. The substantial scale of accommodation provided by the
farmhouse, (Mr Rogers’ mother lives in the farmhouse and Mrs Rogers also helps with the
provision of “bed and breakfast” accommodation in the farmhouse), would afford
potential to arrange the accommodation within it to provide a greater degree of
independence for the applicants’ son if the current arrangement was unsuitable in the
future. Therefore, in light of the above discussion, it is not considered that there is a need
for an additional dwelling at the farm as an exception to the strong presumption against
residential development in the countryside.
The proposed siting of the dwelling is slightly divorced from the existing cluster of
buildings at Weeke Farm, which are situated at the western end of the farm access track,
and along the south side of the track to where it meets the highway. The site lies
approximately 30 metres to the south of the livestock building at the corner of the farm
access track and county highway. The site lies on sloping ground and would be visually
prominent within the wider valley landscape, which is an Area of Great Landscape Value.
The siting is considered contrary to the provisions of Policy SHDC3 in that it would have
more than little adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside, due
to its separation from the other buildings at Weeke and because of the visual prominence
due to the sloping nature of the landscape. It would also detract from the character and
appearance of the Area of Great Landscape Value, which is characterised by agricultural
land and small clusters of cottages/farmhouses and a mix of traditional and modern
Cttee 01.05.02
DC0901MW
agricultural buildings, for these reasons. It is considered that, should Members be
minded to support an additional on-farm dwelling, the land to the north of the access
track would provide a far less prominent site and the new dwelling would better relate to
existing buildings.
In conclusion, the proposed development is considered contrary to the provisions of
Policies S4 and H4 of the Structure Plan and SHDC3 of the Local Plan, in that there is no
overriding agricultural need, in the context of the requirements set out in national
guidance, and the divorced siting would detract from the character and appearance of
the surrounding countryside, which is an Area of Great Landscape Value.
Human Rights Act
This proposal has been assessed against the Human Rights Act. While the effects of the
recommendation on the applicants are acknowledged, their impact has been carefully
balanced against the wider community interest.
Recommendations
Refusal
Refusal Reasons
1.
The proposed development is considered contrary to the provisions of Policies S4
and H4 of the Structure Plan and SHDC3 of the Local Plan, in that there is no
overriding agricultural need for the proposed agricultural dwelling, in the context
of the requirements set out in national guidance, and the proposed siting would
detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside, which
is an Area of Great Landscape Value.
Cttee 01.05.02
DC0901MW