Development Control West Committee 12 August, /W/2004/ ITEM NUMBER 07. Application Number: 1/W/2004/ Full

Transcription

1 Development Control West Committee 12 August, /W/2004/ ITEM NUMBER 07 Application Number: 1/W/2004/ Full MINOR Registration Date: 7 June, 2004 Application Site: OURGANICS, LITTON LANE, LITTON CHENEY Proposal: Temporary planning permission for an agricultural dwelling tied to Ourganics evolving system for a five year period for the purposes of working on the land (AMENDED DESCRIPTION) Applicant: Mrs P M Foxwell Ward Members: Cllr Bartlett Case Officer: Darren Rogers This application has been called-in to Committee for determination by Councillor Ray 1. Summary Recommendation 1.1 Refuse 2. Description of development 2.1 The application site is located in open countryside and outside of the Defined Development Boundary (DDB) of Litton Cheney. The site itself is about 1km south-west of the village and is located on the south side of Litton Lane. 2.2 Vehicular access is directly off the south side of Litton Lane. 2.3 In May 2003 the applicant replaced a former agricultural shed building with a new building of timber construction which has been erected in the northwestern corner of the site. The applicant permanently occupies the building for residential purposes i.e. as a single dwelling. The building which the new structure replaced was in use and originally erected as stables. 2.4 The dwelling, which this application seeks permission for, measures about 9.8m long x 5m wide x 3.7m high to a pitched roof constructed from galvanized steel sheets and includes feather-edged timber boarding. On the southern roof slope of the building is a small solar panel used to generate power within the building.

2 Background Information 2.5 The applicant has occupied the building as a dwelling on a permanent basis since September Prior to this (for about 4 years) she managed the site whilst living in a rented cottage in Compton Valence some 10km from the site. However because of affordability issues she moved to the present site. 2.6 The dwelling has no mains water or sanitary provision. Water is obtained via a stream local to the site and is filtered for drinking or cooking. Power is supplied via the solar panel. 2.7 The whole site, occupied by the applicant, extends to around 5 acres (2 hectares). It is used as a permaculture unit. The land, which naturally floods in the winter, has been laid out with hard graveled paths and a series of vegetable beds which are flooded in winter to enhance fertility in a manner carried out in a similar fashion hundreds of years ago alongside rivers and canals. 2.8 The site is also used in the summer to grow a wide selection of flower and vegetable crops which provide the applicant with virtually all her food requirements. 2.9 Within the site are 2 polytunnels, one large structure in a central position and one structure along the western boundary. When I visited the site the applicant stated that before erecting them she obtained advice from the Council on the need or otherwise of planning permission for them and was told that she did not need permission. However no written advice was given. Whether permission is required would depend on whether the structures could be regarded as operational development and this would include factors such as size, the type of physical attachment to the ground and their permanency. The planning history of the site does not reveal any permission for these structures. They are certainly intended as permanent features given that they are used to grow more susceptible plants such as tomatoes, herbs, salad leaf crops and capsicums (i.e. peppers). Their physical attachment to the ground by way of sand and gravel and their degree of permanency leads me to conclude that they are operational development and require planning permission. However, this application relates solely to the retention of the dwelling The applicant also keeps various livestock including a couple of lambs, 5 ducks and about 20 free-range chickens The output from the unit (i.e. what is grown and produced) is used by the applicant and sold in the surrounding villages or at farm and market stalls. Details submitted with the application indicate that sales in 2003 totaled just over 3,000 with production costs of 715. Thus the unit is capable of generating a modest profit for the applicant. Over the next few years it is hoped that profits will increase with a forecast of 14,000 in The above outlines the background to the proposal which seeks planning permission for the retention of the dwelling. The applicant also points out

3 that a temporary period of 5 years is sought and that she would be willing to accept an agricultural occupancy condition and that such a permission be made a personal one rather than a permission which runs with the land. 3. Main planning issues Agricultural need for a dwelling on the site given the financial and functional tests as set out in PPG7 Annex I. Compliance with Adopted Structure and Local Plan Policy and the Emerging Guidance in the Revised Deposit Version (March 2004) of the Local Plan. Impact of the development on the character and appearance of the landscape designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Impact of the development on Highway Safety given the access. 4. Statutory Consultations Parish Council 4.1 Whilst in support of the applicant s self-sustaining business the Parish Council does not support the creation of a dwelling at the site. Highway Authority 4.2 No objection 5. Other consultations N/A 5.1 None 6. Other representations 6.1 There has been a substantial number of representations received (see correspondence appendix) which all give support to both her enterprise and the need for a permanent resident on site. 7. Human Rights 7.1 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. 7.2 Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. 7.3 The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property 8. Relevant Planning History App. Ref. Applicant Proposal Decision & Date 1/W/1989/0565 W Kingston Erect wooden hut for agricultural purposes. Approved

4 9. The Development Plan The Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan (adopted 13 July 2000) Settlement Policy I (Development in the countryside permitted only where such a location is essential); Environment Policy F (Quality and Diversity of Dorset Landscape maintained and enhanced via amongst other things respect for the particular characteristics of the local landscape); Environment Policy G (Priority given to the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape). The West Dorset District Local Plan (adopted 6 November 1998) Policy SP3 (Development outside Defined Development Boundary); Policy H5 (Agricultural Workers / Forestry Workers Dwelling); Policy L1 (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty); Policy L5 (Streams and River Areas); Policy CD1 (Design Standards); Policy TR19 (Parking Provisions); The Revised Deposit West Dorset District Local Plan (Published 8 March 2004) Policy SA1 (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty); Policy SA15 (Ground Water Source protection); Policy AH14 (Road Safety); Policy SS3 (Development outside Defined Development Boundary); Policy HS6 (Essential Rural Worker s Dwelling); Policy TRAN5 (Parking Provision); Policy DA5 (The Scale and Positioning of Buildings); Policy DA7 (Detailed Design and Materials); Policy SU1 (Energy Efficiency) 9. Supplementary planning guidance N/A 9.1 None 10. Planning issues 10.1 The determining issue for Members in this case is whether there is an ESSENTIAL agricultural need for a permanent dwelling at this site given the enterprise being carried out by the applicant and the advice as contained in PPG 7 Annex I, and the Adopted Structure and Local Plan Policies and Emerging Policy in the Revised Deposit Local Plan March Reading Agricultural Consultancy: Appraisal on Need 10.2 In this case the Council has sought the advice of Reading Agricultural Consultancy (RAC) to assess the applicant s case. Their response is outlined in the Correspondence Appendix.

5 10.3 While the applicant is to be applauded given the many sustainable methods she employs in operating her permaculture business there is concern that when applying the advice contained in PPG 7 and Structure and Local Plan Policy that, the need for a dwelling on this site is NOT essential PPG 7 Annex I outlines a financial and functional test with regards to the establishment of a dwelling on site, and where a new activity or agricultural enterprise is being established (where long-term prospects have yet to be proven) then the siting of accommodation for a temporary period (normally 3 years) is likely to be acceptable subject to criteria. However, the advice states that with regards to an application for temporary dwellings, that permission should not be given in locations where a permanent dwelling would not be permitted Structure Plan Policy I outlines that development in the countryside should only be permitted where such a location is essential Adopted Local Plan Policy SP3 states that development outside DDB s will not be permitted except for dwellings where there is a proven local need in accordance with Policy H5. Policy H5 refers to Agricultural / Forestry Worker s Dwellings The Revised Deposit Version of the Local Plan (March 2004) outlines under Policy HS6 9 criteria to be met if dwellings are to be permitted for agricultural workers. However, given that this Policy has yet to be tested at Public Local Inquiry less weight can be given to it in the determination of the application and more weight should therefore be given to the Adopted Structure and Local Plan Policies as well as the advice in PPG7 Annex I One final Policy consideration is that of Draft Planning Policy Statement 7 but it must be remembered that this remains as Draft advice and has yet to become extant advice. Nevertheless the applicant points out that PPS 7 with regards to the financial test allows for developments / enterprises which aim to operate broadly on a subsistence basis. However, much more importantly this advice re-affirms PPG 7 advice that isolated new houses in the countryside will require special justification for planning permission to be granted Paragraphs of RAC s report outline those Policy aspects of the application including Paras with regard to emerging National guidance With regards to the tests as set out in PPG 7 Annex I, RAC has considered them in turn:- a clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise concerned RAC considers that the applicant is able to demonstrate a clear intention and ability to establish the unit (see paras of the appraisal): b functional test this requires the establishment of an essential need for the proper functioning of an enterprise for one or more workers to be readily available at most times. PPG 7 cites the case of the

6 delivery of essential care to animals and protection of crops as examples. Given the fact that the business in this case has only 20 free-range hens and 5 ducks where there are no automatic feeding, watering or ventilation systems to be monitored, then there is no essential need for staff to live on site (see Paras 28-29). The crops that are grown on site are considered to be at risk from the vagaries of the weather regardless of whether there is anyone living on the site (see Para 30). The only agricultural aspect of the project that might notionally require on-site supervision are the susceptible crops grown in the unathorised polytunnels but it is only considered that this would be the case during periods of adverse (cold) weather (see Para 31). RAC points out an Inspector s conclusions on the vagaries of the English weather (see Para 32), when it was concluded that such events were infrequent. The conclusions of the financial test as outlined by RAC are that from an agricultural perspective there is no essential need for anyone to live on site permanently to ensure the proper functioning of the enterprise. While living on site would no doubt be desirable or advantageous it cannot be considered essential. However, it appears from the applicant s submission that the drive for a dwelling on site is as a result of the social and domestic needs of the applicant as opposed to the essential needs of the enterprise concerned. This, however, runs contrary to PPG 7 advice which strongly seeks to resist the provision of new dwellings in the countryside for any purpose other than commercial agriculture and that the need to live on-site will depend upon the circumstances of the enterprise rather than the personal preferences or circumstances of any individual (see Para 34). Furthermore, it should also be pointed out that with regards to the functional test it has only been within the last 12 months (Sept 2003) that the applicant began to permanently occupy the dwelling and that between 1999 (when the site was purchased) and 2003 (a period of 4 years) the applicant was living 10km away in Compton Valence. While it could be argued that the enterprise then was not as well established as it is now, it nevertheless shows that it was not essential to live on the site in order to operate the business c financial test the Policy framework against which this criteria must be judged is that the enterprise and activity needs to have been planned on a sound financial basis with a view to it being sustained. However, the applicant has stated that the main and central ethos of the dwelling is to form a low impact, sustainable unit in the countryside and that the provision of a substantial permanent structure is an anathema. This is why a 5-year planning permission, personal to the

7 applicant is sought. This begs the question as to what the Council will be asked to determine at the end of 5 years if permission is granted bearing in mind that successive temporary permissions are not generally encouraged by Government Guidance (Circular 11/95 use of Conditions). The applicant (via the Organic Advisory Service) has submitted a document which sets out a series of financial forecasts (see Correspondence Appendix) up and until RAC has considered this information (see Para 37) and has concluded that the unit could possibly generate the forecast income. While the unit has been planned on a sound financial basis, the reality of such plans can only be tested over time. Crucially, however, the issue that needs to be determined is whether the applicant has produced this information merely as an academic exercise or whether there are real intentions for the plans. RAC questions whether a return of 15,000 and the large production from the unit falls within the ethos of permaculture (see Para 38). d. Suitability and availability of other possible accommodation - there are many villages located close to the site (Litton Cheney, Puncknowle, Long Bredy, Little Bredy, Shipton Gorge and Swyre), which in theory could provide suitable places to live from which to manage the unit. However, in this case no information has been submitted to indicate the availability of such accommodation by the applicant (but this would no doubt be the case given the applicant s intention to continue to live on-site). It should also be pointed out that the applicant for 4 years lived away from the site and moved out from Compton Valence because of the rising cost of rent. Following on from this however, it raises the issue of whether the applicant s real intention to implement the expansion plans to generate an income of 15,000 a year would be sufficient to pay for a rented property (see Pars 39 and 40). With regard to the level of income forecast i.e. 15,000 Draft PPS 7 Guidance states that authorities should take a realistic approach to the level of profitability, taking into account the nature of the enterprise and that some enterprises operated broadly on a subsistence basis can be sustained on relatively low financial returns. However, nowhere in PPG 7 or Draft PPS 7 addresses the issue of what constitutes a viable business. Conventionally an agricultural business is described as viable if disposable income after expenditure exceeds the minimum agricultural wage ( 13,000). RAC point out that Inspectors at appeal hearings and Inquiries have adopted this measure. (See Paras of RAC s report). In this case the figures submitted with this application have been prepared along exactly these same lines which the appraisal has calculated the rate of return to be 6.5%. RAC accepts this if all

8 assumptions are met in full RAC s conclusions - In the context of the tests as set out in PPG 7, RAC concludes that:- The applicant has demonstrated an intention and ability to develop the enterprise; There is no essential need for a worker to live on site although the social and domestic needs of the applicant are acknowledged; If all assumptions in the appraisal as submitted are met, the unit could generate sufficient funds to provide a reasonable return to the land, labour and capital used in the business; While RAC has not researched the availability of other accommodation in the area there are villages located near to the site which perhaps this could be found. Impact of the development on the Character and Appearance of the Landscape The site is within the open countryside and within the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The prime consideration in the AONB is that development should conserve the natural beauty of the area The site upon which the dwelling is situated is well screened on all sides by either high hedges or trees. The dwelling cannot be seen from any adjoining public vantage points i.e. the public highway at the vehicular access to the site or any public footpaths or bridleways near to the site. On this basis the dwelling s impact upon the landscape and the AONB is considered to be acceptable The dwelling is constructed mainly from timber feather edged boarding which is considered to be an appropriate external material for the site s location. The only concern with regards to the use of materials when seen from within the site is the pitched roof, which is constructed from steel sheets. At the present time these sheets in sunny conditions can result in some glare but this effect is likely to reduce when additional weathering takes place Overall, however, the dwelling s impact on the character and appearance of the area and of the wider landscape is considered to be satisfactory. Impact on access and highway matters Vehicular access is directly off the south side of the rural Litton Lane. A set of access gates are set sufficiently back from the highway in order to allow a vehicle to park off the highway whilst opening the access gates. Upon

9 entering the site from the access gates car parking is available on the eastern side of the site When egressing the site, visibility is somewhat restricted on either side by the hedges that surround the site. Nevertheless this stretch of road is generally straight and directly opposite the site is a small mirror which helps drivers when egressing the site to check for vehicle movements along the road. The installation of such a mirror would indicate that visibility is poor but following consultation with County Highways they have raised no objections to the application The Existing Polytunnels Although this application relates solely to the building on site used as a dwelling, it is worthwhile making mention of the polytunnels on the site. The applicant claims that she was informed by officers at the Council sometime in 2003 that no planning permission was required. However, there has been no exchange of letters verifying this issue Given their size, physical attachment to the ground and permanence it is my view that planning permission would be required. On the planning merits of the polytunnels, however, their impact on the character and appearance of the landscape is considered to be satisfactory. As with the dwelling, the polytunnels cannot be seen from any public road, footpath or bridleway nearby given that it is surrounded on all sides by trees and well established hedges. They therefore cause no undue harm to the character and appearance of the area. 11. Conclusions / Summary 11.1 The application is for the retention of a building used as a single dwelling and the building has replaced a similar, albeit different, agricultural building in roughly the same place The external appearance of the building is considered acceptable and would have no unduly adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, nor on the landscape designated as AONB However, following an appraisal of the need for the dwelling, RAC concludes that while the applicant has demonstrated an intention and ability to develop the enterprise, there is no essential need for a worker to live on site although the social and domestic needs of the applicant are acknowledged The dwelling is considered satisfactory from a highway safety aspect Although the use of the land has much to commend it to the wider principles of sustainable development, from a planning policy point of view there remains no essential need for a temporary dwelling even for 5 years on the site. One of the prime reasons why the applicant wishes to live on the site is for security reasons having been burgled twice (see correspondence

10 appendix) but this reason is not considered to outweigh the Policy objections Finally, Members should be aware that if they resolve to refuse permission in line with officer s recommendation, that this would result in enforcement action given that this application is for retrospective permission Human Rights The following articles of the European Convention of Human Rights fall to be considered. Art 6. The right to a fair trial. Art 8. The right to respect for private and family life. Art 14. Prohibition of discrimination. The First Protocol 12. Recommendation Art 1. Protection of Property The recommendations outlined below are considered to be proportionate to the protection of the rights and freedoms of others and with regards to the enfocement action indicated to ensure compliance with the breach of planning control identified Refuse i. Refusal is recommended on the grounds that having regard to the advice contained in Annex I of Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 Countryside, it is considered there is no essential need for a temporary dwelling at the application site. As a result the proposal is considered to be contrary to Settlement Policy I of the adopted Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan; Policies SP3 (Development outside Defined Development Boundary) and H5 (Agricultural / Forestry Workers Dwellings) of the Adopted West Dorset District Local Plan; and Policies SS3 (Development outside Defined Development Boundary) and HS6 (Essential Rural Workers Dwellings) of the Revised Deposit West Dorset District Local Plan (March 2004). Further Recommendation: It is recommended that Enforcement Action be taken to ensure the cessation of the residential use of the building on the grounds that the retention of the use would run counter to the above-mentioned National Structure and Local Plan Policies. Time period for compliance is recommended as 3 months.