Item No: 04 Application No. Site No. Site Address S.10/2495/FUL 29036 Bakers Piece, Batch Farm, Cranham, Gloucestershire Town/Parish Cranham Parish Council Grid Reference 389055,211885 Application Type Proposal Full Planning Permission Siting of a mobile home for agricultural worker Applicant s Details Agent s Details Case Officer Application Validated Mr I Baker The Cottage, Cranham, GL4 8HP, Bruton Knowles Property Consultants Bisley House, Green Farm Business Park, Bristol Road, Gloucester, GL12 4LY Darryl.J. Rogers 12.04.2011 RECOMMENDATION
Recommended Refusal Decision For the following reasons: 1. The proposal would involve the erection of a residential unit to support a farm holding consisting predominantly of land secured by informal arrangements only with no security of tenure. As such the proposal fails to robustly demonstrate that a functional need will exist in the longer term or that the business can be planned on a sound financial basis with clear evidence of firm and achievable intentions to develop, contrary to Planning Policy Statement 7 and Policy HN10 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2005. 2. The proposal by virtue of the lack of information regarding the availability of other agricultural workers dwellings or other farm houses in the vicinity of the site, fails to adequately demonstrate that any proven functional need cannot be fulfilled by existing housing stock contrary to Planning Policy Statement 7 and Policy HN10 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2005. Comments Received Not Yet Received Letters of Objection Letters of Support Letters of Comment CONSULTEES Cotswolds Conservation Board GCC Revised Consultation (E) Environmental Health (E) Gloucestershire Rural Services (E) Parish / Town CONTRIBUTORS None None None OFFICER S REPORT THE SITE The application site consists of an area of farmland located on the outskirts of Cranham to the north of the district outside of any defined settlement boundary. The 0.1 hectare site forms part of the original Batch Farm complex located in this rural part of the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The land is currently in agricultural use and contains a single modern open fronted farm building and takes access of the existing farm track to the west which also serves the existing Batch Farm House approximately 150m away. The land is known as Bakers Piece and used to form part of the wider Batch Farm land. The Bakers Piece part of the application site forms an individual holding of 1.94 hectares (approx 5 acres) with a further 20.2 hectares (50 acres) holding on other parts of Batch Farm. In an addition to this the farm business also uses a further 64.3
hectares (approx 160 acres) of land across five other farms in the Cranham area. In total the business farms in excess of 81 hectares (200 acres) of land. None of the land, be it the Bakers Piece holding or the wider land, is owned by the applicant. With the exception of the 1.94 hectares at Baker Piece, all of the land is farmed by way of gentleman s agreements. The Bakers Piece land is occupied under a farm business tenancy agreement for a period of 60 years. The core of the farm business relates to the keeping of livestock including suckler cows (30 head), calf rearing, Gloucester Old Spot pigs (4 sows, two gilts and a boar), Cotswold sheep (30 head). The labour on the site is provided by the applicant and his wife with assistance from the applicant s father. THE PROPOSAL The proposal seeks permission for erection of a mobile home for a period of three years to enable the applicant and his family to live at Bakers Piece. The mobile home would be located in close proximity to the modern farm building and would take access of the existing track. Whilst the exact design and size of the mobile home would be a matter for potential conditions, the building would be of three bed design to accommodate the applicant s immediate family. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY Previous approval for existing farm building given under an agricultural prior notification, S.05/1694/AGR, in September 2005. CONSULTATION RESPONSES Highway Authority Raise no objection subject to the existence of a proven agricultural need for the mobile home. Cranham Parish Council The Council support the application stating that: 'At our last Parish Council Meeting it was confirmed that the Council wish this application to be considered by DCC, as previously advised by the Chairman. Cranham Parish Council repeats its wholehearted support for this application. They are well aware that there have been previous applications for agricultural dwellings that have abused the regulations. This has made the situation much more difficult for genuine applicants. However this application is genuine, the applicants are an honest hardworking local couple who want to expand their business and make it more successful. It is very difficult for people to make a start in farming these days, unless they have access to substantial capital. The applicants are not so fortunate but have acquired a reasonable amount of land on a rented basis. This may be unusual, but it works. It also provides a very welcome option to owners of small parcels of land that would otherwise be left unproductive. Therefore the Parish Council urge the DCC to exercise its discretion and grant permission.' ARTICLE 31 STATEMENT REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
For the purposes of Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2010, the following reasons for the Council's decision are summarised below together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained within the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision: The main policy advice for an application of this type is contained within Annex A of Planning Policy Statement 7, which outlines a number of criteria to be met when considering applications for permanent and temporary farm workers dwellings. This advice then informs policies HN10 and NE8 which seek to protect the rural character of the AONB from an unwarranted and unjustified residential development unless essential to the efficient operation of agricultural or forestry enterprises. Given this policy background it is clear that the key consideration for this application is its conformity with the requirements of Annex A of PPS7. PPS7 states at paragraph 12 of Annexe A: 'Temporary agricultural dwellings 12. 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 be easily dismantled, or other temporary accommodation. It should satisfy the following criteria: (i) clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise concerned (significant investment in new farm buildings is often a good indication of intentions); (ii) functional need (see paragraph 4 of this Annex); (iii) clear evidence that the proposed enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis; (iv) the functional need could not be fulfilled by another existing dwelling on the unit, or any other existing accommodation in the area which is suitable and available for occupation by the workers concerned; and (v) other normal planning requirements, e.g. on siting and access, are satisfied. 13. If permission for temporary accommodation is granted, permission for a permanent dwelling should not subsequently be given unless the criteria in paragraph 3 above are met. The planning authority should make clear the period for which the temporary permission is granted, the fact that the temporary dwelling will have to be removed, and the requirements that will have to be met if a permanent permission is to be granted. Authorities should not normally grant successive extensions to a temporary permission over a period of more than three years, nor should they normally give temporary permissions in locations where they would not permit a permanent dwelling.' [Paras 12 and 13 PPS7] The functional need is defined within PPS7 as: '4. 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: (i) in case animals or agricultural processes require essential care at short notice;
(ii) to deal quickly with emergencies that could otherwise cause serious loss of crops or products, for example, by frost damage or the failure of automatic systems.' In order to assess the conformity of the proposal with this guidance and to enable detailed and comprehensive consideration to be given to the applicant s business, the Council commissioned an Agricultural Appraisal carried out by Gloucestershire County Council Rural Services. The conclusions of this appraisal are summarised in the following discussion which is set out in line with the criteria contained in PPS7. Clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise The appraisal comments that the applicant has a strong intent to develop the business and process the necessary skills and experience to do so both now and in the future and has no doubts in this regard. However the ability and skills of the applicant must be viewed in the contexts of the permanence of the holding and the ability to expand the holding itself rather than just the skills of the personnel involved. In considering the firmness of the business and its ability to expand, the appraisal notes that that none of the land on which the business is based, is actually owned by the applicant and indeed further notes that the majority of the land is not controlled by any formal long term legal agreement. In addition the tenancy agreement covering the sole area of tenanted land at Bakers Piece contains break clauses which, whilst unlikely to be so, could be instigated at short notice. Although the fact that the overall holding is controlled by a number of landowners rather than one, presents less chance of all of the land being withdrawn at the same time, the lack of formal permanence of tenure presents a tenuous situation on which to judge matters of long term functional need and financial stability. It must also be noted that the lack of formal agreements would have a significant impact on the ability or desire of the applicant to invest in new buildings or infrastructure on land which could be withdrawn at relatively short notice. Such a situation would not comply with the objectives of paragraph 12 of PPS7. In respect of this criterion, the appraisal concludes that: 'if an authority was minded to grant permission for a dwelling to service land, the majority of which could be taken away from the applicant within a year, it would potentially create a difficult precedent for future applications'. The agents for the applicants state, in acknowledging this lack of land ownership, that the willingness of the applicant to invest funds into the provision of a mobile home on tenanted land where any financial uplift in the land value would go to the landlord, demonstrates their overwhelming desire to expand and support the farm unit rather the achievement of financial gain. Functional Need In respect of how the enterprise is operating at the current time, the appraisal acknowledges that there is a functional need for an on-site labour presence in light of the existing calf rearing and lambing activities Again however the aforementioned concerns about the land ownership arrangements in respect of the ability to expand the business are equally applicable to the on-going existence of a functional need. The appraisal provides the following comments on this matter:
'If a certain acreage becomes no longer available, for whatever reason, the number of animals kept might have to be greatly reduced, resulting in the lessening of the functional need to be living on site. It should also be noted that although Bakers Piece is on a 60 year Farm Business Tenancy, the agreement could itself potentially come to an end, if for instance the landlord decided to instigate a break clause or have other grounds to bring the agreement to an end no matter how good the relationship might be now between Landlord and Tenant. This is unusual in that the applicant is effectively applying for a dwelling on a farming system that totally relies on land that is rented. The planning authority would have to very confident that the present system would be maintained long into the future before being able to make a judgement as to whether there was a functional need.' It is clear from the situation that the current land ownership arrangements give rise to significant concerns for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that a functional need can be guaranteed in the longer term. Clear Evidence of Sound Financial Basis The financial circumstances surrounding the business mirror those outlined above with regard to the current situation versus the longer term prospects. As it stands financial records indicate that the business is profitable albeit with the applicant just achieving the minimum wage and hence represents a viable business. In addition the appraisal notes that the business has potential to expand and hence become more viable in the future. This longer term picture is enhanced by the experience of the applicant and his stated desire to expand. However the appraisal is unable to provide a definitive statement as to the short and long term financial planning surrounding the business due to the lack of formal tenancy and land ownership arrangements. The appraisal notes at para 4.03 that: 'There is certainly the potential, especially with plans to expand that this would have the makings of a viable business. However again the same issues arise with regard to the future as to whether or not the land that is available will be available in the same form as it is now. As a consequence it is not possible to make a proper judgement as to whether the business is on a sound financial basis in respect of the foreseeable future with all the land rented and the vast majority on only annual arrangements.' The availability of other dwelling In compliance with the guidance contained in PPS7, a proposal of this sought needs to satisfy not only the functional and financial tests contained therein, but also must be required in the absence of any other suitable existing dwellings to serve the holding. In this instance there are two residential properties in the immediate vicinity which must be considered. The first is Batch Farm and the second is the bungalow located at Woodlands Farm. Batch Farm is the traditional stone farmhouse located in extremely close proximity to the application site and indeed the site forms part of the overall Batch Farm holding which the farmhouse has historically served. The submitted details contains no discussion as to the availability or otherwise of this property and hence has it not
been considered. Notwithstanding this omission, it appears from the lack of planning history associated with the dwelling that it is not subject to an agricultural tie and could therefore be sold on the open market at far in excess of the applicants price range. In addition the property is not on the market and hence its availability is questionable. The complex of Woodlands Farm to the immediate north of the site may also benefit from permission for a farm workers dwelling permitted in 1980 under reference S.9707/A. The planning history indicates that any property built would have been subject to an agricultural tie and appears ideally located to serve the holding to which the application relates. Indeed it is noted that of the 200 acre holding put forward to serve this application, 20 acres is located within the Woodlands Farm holding itself. However the application contains no discussion as to its current situation, availability or occupational relationship of the Woodlands Farm complex and Bakers Piece. Ironically the availability of either of these two properties is subject to the same future uncertainty of tenure factors against which the long term availability of the applicants holding must be assessed. The supporting statement submitted with the application focuses exclusively on the availability of open market housing available to the applicants during 2010. Unsurprisingly the cost of these houses in the Cranham area is far beyond that achievable on an agricultural wage. However no discussion as to the availability of agriculturally tied properties is included, even it was to prove fruitless. There is simply no information on which a conclusion on this issue can be based. Given this situation it is considered that the application does not contain sufficient information to demonstrate that all and every suitable alternative form of accommodation, prior to the consideration of a new unit, has been exhausted as required by Annex A of PPS7. Whilst this may indeed prove fruitless, the importance of such an exercise cannot be ignored as a key policy requirement. CONCLUSION It is clear from the above discussion and the comments made in the agricultural appraisal that the applicants are genuine in their farming intentions and their desire to consolidate and expand their business. However equally clear is that the absence of long term tenancy agreements or any legal binding ownership of the overall holding presents considerable policy concerns. On this very subject the appraisal summary is particularly apt: 'Frustratingly this involves a very go ahead young farmer who has built up a mixed viable livestock enterprise largely on the present goodwill of local landowners. One cannot but sympathise with his situation with regard to accommodation. However, ownerships and people change and with it the same willingness to let land in the future. With this lack of security one cannot properly base issues as required by planning guidance, such as the ability to maintain the existing system and as a consequence functional and financial tests. Even if these issues were satisfied one also cannot ignore the existence of the farmhouse at Batch Farm as a base to manage the land at Batch Farm from in the future including Bakers Piece itself.' [Para 5 Agricultural Appraisal] With this in situation in mind it is clear that the lack of certainty regarding the long term area of land available to the holding is the over-riding factor and as such, no
matter how laudable the desires of the applicant, the proposal cannot be demonstrated to accord with Annex A of PPS7. Although an argument can be made that the permission seeks only a temporary period of residence and hence the unit could theoretically be removed if the ownership situation changes, the pertinent question in such circumstances is one of what would happen in three years time if the applicants were to apply for a permanent dwelling based on the same ownership criteria? Guidance within PPS7 clearly states that the Local Planning Authority should not grant temporary permission if it is not willing to grant a permanent permission in the future (the temporary nature being purely for the business to prove that its initial sound financial planning has come to fruition). If temporary permission was forthcoming on this application, the LPA would have accepted that the current tenuous land arrangements are satisfactory. It would then be extremely difficult to resist permitting a permanent dwelling justified solely on the basis of temporary informal land controls. It would be wholly contrary to the fundamental objective of PPS7 to permit a permanent farm workers dwelling where the farm in question is predominantly secured solely by way of gentlemans agreements. RECOMMENDATION Refusal is recommended. HUMAN RIGHTS In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected properties. In particular, regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no particular matters, other to those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to that recommended.