Planning for Small Scale Agriculture in Wales
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
(Nov 2018) Planning for small scale agriculture in Wales Social Farms and Gardens (SF&G) is a UK wide charity supporting community farming enterprises, care farms and community food growing projects. We manage the Community Land Advisory Service Cymru (CLAS), funded under authority of the Minister for the Environment, to support community-led green space projects. Between 2013 and 2018 CLAS supported 242 projects to access land, navigate planning processes and secure ownership for their enterprises for the future. However, many projects located beyond town and village boundaries, in the Welsh countryside faced, and still face, significant planning barriers to start up and success. On behalf of the many organisations working to support community-led growing initiatives, we suggest that these barriers could be reduced by making planning rights for small scale farmers more equal to those that large scale farmers enjoy. ‘Brexit and our land - securing the future of Welsh farming’ reminds us that leaving the EU presents a unique opportunity to deliver bespoke Welsh policy that provides for our economy, society and natural environment. We believe that our suggested changes will help align planning policy and permitted development rights with this vision and with the current Welsh Government direction for Welsh farming. Permitted Development The General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) 19951 allows for agricultural operations located on a unit of more than 5 hectares (12.3 acres) to erect new structures that are ‘reasonably necessary’ for the purposes of agriculture within that unit. A prior notification application must be submitted to the local planning authority who assess siting, design and external appearance of the building within 28 days. Certain criteria and conditions apply but a full planning application is rarely required. Farming operations on units of more than 5 hectares may also carry out excavations and engineering operations within the same prior notification procedure. Further to this, the GPDO2 allows new forestry buildings, operations and private ways, to qualify as ‘permitted development’ on land used for forestry. There is no upper or lower limit on size of the forestry holding to qualify for these permitted development rights. However, the GPDO3, stipulates that farmers located on farming units of less than 5 hectares can only extend or alter existing buildings and not erect new ones (under a similar prior notification procedure). A full planning application is required for any new structure to be submitted to the local planning authority. 1) Will the Cabinet Secretary support changes to ensure that ‘reasonably necessary’ structures on small scale farming operations are afforded the same permitted development rights as those proposed on farming units over 5 hectares? 1 Class A, Part 6 of Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995. 2 Part 7 of Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995. 3 Class B, Part 6 of Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995. Left: Example ‘packing shed’ that is not permissible on holdings under 5 hectares without full planning permission. Right: Example chicken shed, which, if on an agricultural operation of 5 hectares or more, can gain permission under the GPDO prior notification procedure (up to 465sq m) and therefore, qualify as permitted development Planning Policy Wales (PPW) When local planning authorities (LPAs) receive planning applications for essential structures on small scale farming enterprises, they lack clarity on how to assess the merits of the proposed development. This is largely because there is very little national planning guidance for them to be led by and because, community supported agriculture, community farms, care farms and other small-scale farming enterprises are seen by local planning authorities as non-traditional ways of farming the Welsh countryside. This is even though, they are just as legitimate and as beneficial, to the rural economy of Wales (see Appendix 1). Farmers and growers are often asked to spend valuable time demonstrating how they are adding to the rural economy and to show why the structure is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture on that unit. This means farmers operating on units under 5 hectares are more constrained than other more traditional, larger scale farmers. We are aware of cases where structures and engineering operations have not been considered necessary for the purposes of agriculture by the LPA (Appendix 1). Such developments are often refused at a local level, only for the farmer to wait several months for a positive outcome at appeal or they are forced to reconsider their position altogether. This is therefore, directly affecting the number of people that enter farming in Wales and the number of farmers that seek to remain profitable by downsizing and diversifying. Example of compost toilet that currently requires a full planning application. This is the type of structure that the farmer needs to justify is reasonably necessary for the purposes of his/her farming business. 2) Could the Cabinet Secretary instruct her officials to ensure that Edition 10 of PPW acknowledges small scale (modern day) farming methods as excellent ways of building resilience to climate change? Although the consultation draft of Planning Policy Wales (PPW) Edition 104 asks planning authorities to adopt a positive approach to diversification projects in rural areas, there is strong rationale that PPW should also state that planning authorities should not unnecessarily prevent development of small-scale farming enterprises. SF&G advisors and other third sector partners would be pleased to work with government officials on wording that is considered mutually appropriate. In the spirit of co-production, we would welcome early collaboration with Welsh Government on future consultations, as we often feel, the current status quo is indicating some missed opportunities. 4 SF&G have responded in detail to the consultation on Edition 10 Appendix 1 – Examples and Case Studies A summary of responses from small scale farmers to planning barriers as outlined in this document - Farmers cannot afford to apply for planning permission for a new structure and do not erect any essential structures on their enterprise. This leads to lack of volunteers and workers; the farmer cannot operate all year round and they are severely constrained in terms of packing and distributing their goods to market. - Farmers erect structures without planning permission and risk planning enforcement action. - Small scale farming projects and enterprises have no room to expand, and therefore are not fulfilling their potential to the rural economy. - Planning authorities are wasting valuable time assessing planning applications for small scale essential structures on small scale farming enterprises. - Planning authorities are turning a blind eye to unauthorised structures unless a complaint is made by a member of the public. A summary of the Small is Successful Report Please be advised that the small is successful report was written in 2011. The Small is Successful report was produced by the Ecological Land Cooperative in 2011 in response to demand from planners and organisations interested in land-based livelihoods; the common view being that for an agricultural holding to viable it must be large. The reality is that most large-scale farms rely on public funding and unpaid farmer labour for their viability. Most UK funding streams now recognise this flaw and support agricultural diversification and environmentally sensitive farming methods. Sustainability is now at the heart of farming and climate change and food security issues mean that there are increasing numbers of people trying to address the ills of food production and becoming directly involved in producing, processing and selling food. The farms mentioned in the Small is Successful report receive no agricultural subsidies, rely on local networks and rarely qualify for public funding but are successful economically, socially and environmentally. The first case study (a farm shop and veg box scheme on 3- 6.5 acres) demonstrates that acreage is not the important factor but the soil quality and how the produce is marketed, determines success. The second case study (the Real Seed Collection) sees the planning system as the biggest threat to its survival. In 2011 the business was operating on only 2.5 acres, structures such as a drying barn, polytunnel or residential accommodation could not be erected. The third, a commercial forest garden operating on 4.5 acres (1.5 acres being cultivated) is a model of people centred agriculture relying on low cost labour and having sufficient accommodation to host 8-10 people at a time. The high levels of biodiversity and integration with the natural environment has created a resilient system on this holding, which will be much better placed to withstand the adverse effects of climate change than industrialised monocultures that the current UK planning system is geared towards supporting. Another organic vegetable and flower grower who occupies 6.5 acres at Spring Grove, Somerset took years to prove an agricultural workers dwelling was justified at the site and any additional polytunnels are unlikely to be considered favourably by local authority planners. In 2007 the enterprise made £23,100 in profit. One of the most interesting case studies in the report, from a planning point of view, is ‘Maesyffin Mushrooms’ located in Ceredigion. This award-winning enterprise operates on a 30m x 20m holding, that’s just 0.14 of an acre. The business has a turnover of £10 000 per year. It contains the footprint of the house, garage, 2 polytunnels and a shipping container and is referred to as a 30m x 20m ‘garden’. It is important that the operation remains adaptable so that it can evolve to meet its own needs but in 2011 it served a healthy local market and internet sales and it is possible that a number of local growers could set up throughout Wales.