APPLICATION ITEM SDNP/12/01754/FUL NUMBER: NUMBER: 6 APPLICANTS PARISH / / Ditchling and Mr D Gorringe NAME(S): WARD: Westmeston PROPOSAL: Planning Application for Erection of an agricultural dwelling SITE ADDRESS: Land adjacent to Pumping Station, Keymer Road, Ditchling GRID REF: TQ 3115

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 17/07/13 1. SITE DESCRIPTION / PROPOSAL

1.1 Court Farm is located to the north side of the B2116 outside any planning boundary between the villages of Ditchling and Keymer. The farm accommodates two steel framed barns and a large hardstanding, set in relatively open pasture land and therefore prominent from the B2116 and a public footpath to the north. To the west of the site is a modern residential housing estate known as Silverdale.

1.2 Planning permission is sought to erect a detached dwelling for occupation by agricultural worker. The proposed dwelling is to be located to the south of the barns, facing east, with a curtilage extending 115 metres from east to west. The dwelling itself is a three bedroom dwelling, with two storeys of accommodation, measuring 11.8m by 9m in footprint with pitched roof above, measuring 8m in height. The dwelling will be constructed of brick at ground floor, with tile hanging at first floor and a plain clay tiled roof. A large garden is proposed to the west and east, with a new access to the south of the site leading to a parking area in front of the dwelling.

1.3 It should be noted that an accompanying application has also been submitted on this site, reference SDNP/12/02668/CND. This application seeks permission to vary a condition controlling use of the western barn on site. This application is also reported on this agenda.

2. RELEVANT POLICIES

LDLP: - CT1 – Planning Boundary and Key Countryside

LDLP: – ST3 – Design, Form and Setting of Development

3. PLANNING HISTORY

SDNP/12/02668/CND - Variation of condition 5 of planning approval LW/09/0609 (Creation of cattle yard comprising of one steel frame building, hardstanding and associated landscaping) to allow cows of all ages to be accommodated in the yard – Pending Consideration

LW/11/0980/NP – Erection of three bedroom cottage – Withdrawn

LW/09/0609 – Creation of cattle yard comprising of one steel frame building, hardstanding and associated landscaping (resubmission of planning application LW/08/0322) – Approved

LW/08/0322 - Erection of two steel framed agricultural buildings for housing cattle and hay/straw barn - Refused

LW/05/2278 – Erection of cattle yard - Approved

LW/05/1222 – Erection of a cattle yard - Withdrawn

4. REPRESENTATIONS FROM STANDARD CONSULTEES

Ditchling Parish Council – It was agreed to object strongly on the following grounds: - The proposed development would result in a cumulative form of development which would further erode the strategic green belt between the villages of Keymer and Ditchling. - It would have a detrimental visual impact on the rural character and appearance of the area within the South Downs National Park.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 17/07/13 - It would seriously mar the panoramic view from the footpath to the north of the site contrary to the aims and objectives of Policies ST3, CT1, CT2 and PPS1 and PPS7 of the National Policy Guidelines. - The ‘Agricultural Supporting Statement’ states that the aim is to calve the majority of cows in a central location. A previous application in 2011 gave the number of suckler cows as 288. - Noise from this kind of intensive farming will adversely affect the residential amenities of the residents of Lodge Hill Lane and Silverdale. When permission was granted to build a barn LW/09/0609, condition 5 stated that the yard "should be used to house fully weaned calves only" in the interest of noise and residential amenities and having regard to Policy ST3 of the Lewes Local District Plan. - Additional risk of contamination to the water source from the effluent from a large number of cattle. - Heavy lorries transporting animals, food and manure will generate a large increase in traffic on a rural road frequented by many pedestrians including school children, mothers with prams and the elderly. - Condition 7 of the previous application for the barns has not been carried out in regard to landscaping to reduce the visual impact. - The proposed dwelling is not in keeping with an agricultural worker's cottage, it has a footage of 152sq.m with a large garden. - There are small properties to rent in the vicinity. - The condition regarding type of cattle to be housed in the barns should remain and there would not be a need for a dwelling on the site.

Environmental Health - I visited this locality in October to assess if the water pumping station operated by South East Water to the east of the site is audible at the pumping station site boundary. At the time of my visit there was no audible sound emanating from the pumping station. In addition I assessed the site in terms of road traffic noise. Given the nature of Keymer Road and the distance of the proposed dwelling from the road, I am of the opinion that glazing systems necessary to comply with Building Regulation requirements will provide sufficient sound attenuation from road traffic noise. Given the remote location I consider there is no necessity to control construction hours at this site.

ESCC Highways – The application attracts a recommendation for refusal. This is because the existing access at its junction with Keymer Road [B2116] has substandard visibility, width and layout and existing hazards would be increased by the additional slowing, stopping, turning and reversing traffic which would be created.

The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges recommends appropriate visibility splays for an access serving this type of development dependent on traffic speeds on the major road. In this instance the recommended visibility splays are 2.4 m by 215 m in each direction, the major road “y” distance measured to the nearside vehicle path.

Keymer Road is a class B road [B2116] and is subject to a 60 mph national speed restriction. The carriageway width at the site frontage is 5.8 m. The footway width across the site frontage to the east of the access is 1 m and 1.5 m wide to the west of the access. There is no footway on the southern side of Keymer Road.

I have studied the comments raised by local residents and the Parish Council and confirm I have visited the site in relation to both this and the concurrent application SDNP/12/02668/CND for this site for variation of conditions. The access to the site is an agricultural field access, being only 3.8 metres wide with only 2 metres junction radii. Thus large farm vehicles would have difficulty entering and leaving the site without using the whole of the carriageway, thereby interrupting the flow of fast moving traffic on the B2116 [Keymer Road]. Furthermore, the visibility for vehicular egress is restricted by the existing

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 17/07/13 hedge along the B2116 and the recommended splay distances of 2.4 metres x 215 metres are not currently achieved.

However, my recommendation for refusal would be withdrawn if the applicant can provide an access width of 5 metres for 11 metres into the site together with 6 metres junction radii, gates set back 11 metres from the back of the highway and the appropriate visibility splays. In terms of the visibility splay distances the applicant would need to demonstrate that the speed of passing traffic correlates to the actual available visibility.

Southern Gas Networks – Standard gas safety advice.

South Downs Society - We appreciate the difficult balance that must be maintained between farming, the environment and the impact on local residents and recognise the important part that farming has to play in maintaining the rural landscape. However, we must also look to the future consequences of development in such a sensitive location. Our concern is that, if this planning application is approved, the impact of the location of these barns within the strategic gap between Keymer and Ditchling will be exacerbated by the addition of an agricultural dwelling designed to a standard which would make it a desirable residence in the country. There are two areas of potential concern that arise.

First, it could signal the start of the establishment of a substantial development of farm buildings in this location on the immediate outskirts of Keymer, with consequential traffic issues associated with increasing farming activity. Neither the roads in Keymer nor Ditchling are suitable to take this additional traffic. Second, if the agricultural tie on the dwelling was to be dropped at some time in the future, it will have provided a desirable residence in a wholly inappropriate location within the National Park.

Mr Richard Wood (Rural Appraisal Officer) – This application is a resubmission of LW/11/0980/NP which was withdrawn on 18th June 2012. My report in response to this withdrawn application is dated 17th January 2012. (A copy of this response is contained at Appendix 1 of the report).

At that time I was guided by the advice and criteria contained in Annex A of PPS7. This advice was cancelled in March with the publication of the NPPF. The only oblique reference to agricultural dwellings is contained in paragraph 55, with the reference to rural dwellings. Local Planning Authorities are advised that isolated houses in the countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances such as:-

"The essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside".

Paragraph 28 of the NPPF encourages Local Planning Authorities to support sustainable growth in rural areas and promote the development of agricultural businesses. Whilst advice in Annex A may now be cancelled, I consider that it is appropriate to be mindful of that advice in assessing the essential need for isolated dwellings in the countryside, to satisfy the need for an agricultural dwelling which will promote the development of an agricultural business. I have addressed the criteria of the Annex in paragraph 5 of my report and I am of the opinion that this still holds good and gives credence to paragraphs 28 and 55 of the NPPF.

I have recalculated the external gross floor area of the proposed dwelling from drawing 2.02 rev. A dated 4th May 2011 and from this I calculate the external gross floor area of the ground and first floors to be 159 sq.m. The usual when justifying an agricultural dwelling being no larger than that of 160 sq.m.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 17/07/13 I am of the opinion that the proposed dwelling is justified, as it satisfies advice in paragraphs 28 and 55 of the NPPF and those criteria contained in Annex A of PPS7. The questions of design, siting, access and impact on the countryside are planning issues and remain yours to determine.

Further response dated 20th December 2012– In terms of why the beef enterprise cannot be moved elsewhere: Lower Wapses Farm is situated in West which is a low TB area where cattle within need only be tested for TB every four years. The applicant's cattle are all within which is a high risk TB area where cattle have to be tested every year. It would not be good farming practice to move cattle from a high risk area into an area of low risk. The applicant has agreed with DEFRA not to do this which also addresses animal welfare issues. The buildings at Lower Wapses are used by the applicant's son to accommodate his flock of 500 breeding ewes.

Further response dated 1st July 2013 – Regarding justification for the new dwelling, the essential need is to be on site for the calving of the then existing 288 suckler cows set out in my previous response. I noted at the time that there were to be 87 heifers introduced into the herd so by now the suclker herd would be in the region of 375 cows. This essential need would still be existing even if you did not remove condition 5 (on accompanying application SDNP/12/02668/CND).

Regarding the usual requirement for a temporary dwelling, the advice within PPS7 is noted. However I do not agree in this case. The calving of the beef cattle is not a new enterprise as such but had been on going on the land occupied by the applicant in the Ditchling area for some years. It may be a newly established satellite site but it has been established to serve an existing use and from a husbandry/ management point of view it makes good sense to have a stockman resident on the site. Each case has to be judged on it's merits and in this case I believe that the permanent dwelling can be justified.

5. REPRESENTATIONS FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS

5.1 49 objections received, raising concerns of encroachment and erosion of the countryside gap between Ditchling and Keymer; adverse impact on the National Park; scale of the dwelling being inappropriate for the proposed use; dwelling being too expensive to construct for proposed use; there being no need for the dwelling as the farm is not used; there is no need for the barn if the current condition on one barn is not removed; the development is contrary to planning policy; development causes an unacceptable increase in agricultural activity, with associated pollution, noise, flies and smell; pressure for further development on the site; impact on protected species; increased flooding risks; increased traffic and harm to highway safety; alternative accommodation is available in the local area; the development is not sustainable development as required by the NPPF; the application contains inaccurate information; the application does not consider the adverse impact on heritage assets; the applicant has systematically applied for planning in order to obtain permission for this dwelling; and that the original permissions were not implemented as required.

5.2 Amenity Association - Object due to the site being within the South Downs National Park and having no justification to be granted; that the house was not included in the original development applied for; the barns have not been used for livestock, thus is planning by stealth; and that development would encroach the strategic gap between Ditchling and Keymer.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 17/07/13 5.3 Hassocks Parish Council - Recommend refusal as development would compromise the strategic gap between Hassocks and Ditchling; would have a detrimental visual impact; and there are concerns regarding the road access.

6. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 The application proposes a new dwelling on site, for use of an agricultural worker. The application must therefore be assessed on the need for this dwelling and its acceptability when assessed against national and local planning policies.

Agricultural need

6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework 2012, paragraph 55, states that new isolated dwellings should be avoided in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as ‘the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside.’ The now superseded Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas gave more detailed advice on assessing this need and required certain criteria to be met. These general criteria are still used, including by Planning Inspectors, as a guide for considering applications for new agricultural dwellings. The application is therefore assessed against each criterion below.

6.3 It should also be noted that the applicant is seeking permission for a permanent dwelling on site. Paragraph 12 of PPS7 stated that if a new dwelling is required to support a new farming activity, whether on a new unit or established one, it should normally be provided by a temporary structure for the first three years. This permanent dwelling sought would therefore appear to contravene this guidance. However, in this case, it is not a new farming activity that is being introduced. The Agricultural Estates Advisor states ‘The calving of the beef cattle is not a new enterprise as such but had been on going on the land occupied by the applicant in the Ditchling area for some years. It may be a newly established satellite site but it has been established to serve an existing use and from a husbandry/ management point of view it makes good sense to have a stockman resident on the site ….. Each case has to be judged on its merits and in this case I believe that the permanent dwelling can be justified.’

6.4 The Advisor has therefore assessed the application having regard to the criteria for assessing permanent dwellings. He has also confirmed that his detailed assessment from January 2012, in relation to withdrawn application LW/11/0980/NP, has been reconsidered under this new application and is still relevant to this application.

Functional test

6.5 The functional test requires it to be proven that it is essential for one or more workers to be readily available at most times in order for the proper functioning of the enterprise. This need must relate to 24 hour care, which requires attendance most of the day and night, for most of the year.

6.6 The applicant has a large agricultural enterprise, split between sheep and beef, farming 650 hectares of land in East and West Sussex. The applicant owns Court Farm in Ditchling and Lower Wapses Farm in , with the latter being the base for the sheep business. Court Farm and the surrounding leased land is currently used for the beef enterprise, with cattle spread over a large 15 mile area. The livestock numbers at June 2012 consisted of a suckler herd of 274 cows, 14 bulls, and 38 heifers due to enter the breeding herd. The progeny produced by these breeding animals are reared as finished fat cattle and consist of 132 two year old steers, 69 two year old heifers, 131 one year old

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 17/07/13 steers, 134 one year old heifers, 143 bull calves and 97 heifer calves. This is a significant herd of cattle that require on site supervision, especially as all are breeding animals. This breeding and calving currently take place outside all year round, with calving from March to July. Supervision is currently provided by a visiting stockman. However, this is becoming harder to manage due to the prolonged calving season, the need to travel around the East Sussex area and need to tend to a growing number of cattle. The number of cattle has also grown due to changes in legislation requiring cattle to be kept on site for longer in order to prevent the spread of TB. Due to these changes, the applicant therefore wishes to centralise all calving in one central location at Court Farm and undertake calving in batches, with each batch taking no longer than three months starting in February .

6.7 The Agricultural Estates Advisor has assessed the above case and confirmed that ‘there is a clearly established functional need for a dedicated stockman to be on site …… and to be readily available at most times to address the proper functioning of the enterprise.’ He has also confirmed that this functional need would exist regardless of whether the restrictive condition on one of the barns is removed, as proposed under accompanying application SDNP/12/02668/CND. The size of the enterprise, its long term established nature and the calving that take places throughout the year, day and night, therefore meet the functional test for a dwelling on site.

Whether there is a need for a full time worker

6.8 Based on the current beef enterprise, the level of supervision and management equates to 1495 Standard Man Days of work. Given that a full time worker equates to 275 Standard Man Days, the enterprise far exceeds the hours needed to justify one full time worker on site.

Financial test

6.9 The applicants farming activity has taken place over three generations, with the beef enterprise being long established. This enterprise has been established far in excess of the three years needed to assess financial viability. The Agricultural Estates Surveyor has stated ‘The benchmark figure necessary to satisfy the financial test requirement is a net farm income equivalent to the standard agricultural workers wage which is currently £13,729 per annum. The applicant’s agent has provided me with professionally prepared accounts and I can confirm this benchmark figure is exceeded by a significant amount.’ As such, the financial test has been satisfied.

Whether there are any other dwellings available to meet the identified need

6.10 This test requires careful consideration due to the size and location of the applicant’s land holding in assessing why this need cannot be met elsewhere.

6.11 The applicant farms a number of holdings in the East Sussex and West Sussex area, including Waterhall Farm and Patcham Court Farm in Brighton, Lower Wapses Farm in Twineham, Court Farm in Ditchling and a further 80 hectares of grassland within a fifteen mile radius of Court Farm. Although this would suggest that there may be alternative locations for a dwelling, the applicant leases the majority of this land. It would therefore be unreasonable to require significant capital investment in this land which is rented.

6.12 Only Court Farm and Twineham Farm are owned by the applicant. Twineham Farm already accommodates the sheep business of the enterprise and the only owned dwelling which is occupied by the applicant in connection with this sheep farming. An on site presence is also required in connection with the beef farming, as evidenced by the tests above. However, this farming cannot take place at Twineham Farm, as it would result in

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 17/07/13 movement of the cattle from East to West Sussex and therefore transfer from a high risk TB area to a low risk TB area which is against good farming practice and is not advised by DEFRA. The cattle therefore have to remain in the East Sussex area and as Court Farm is the only land owned in the area, it is the only suitable place to centre the beef enterprise and make significant financial investment.

6.13 It is alleged that the local area contains many rented properties that could be utilised for a stockman. However, any accommodation must be within ‘sight and sound’ of the agricultural barns in order to provide the emergency livestock care required, especially during the calving period. Any rented accommodation within nearby villages would not meet this criteria. This criteria has therefore been assessed and met.

Other planning requirements

6.14 The last criteria to satisfy within the previous PPS7 is that even if all of the above criteria are met, other planning requirements (such as access or the impact on the countryside) must also be satisfied.

Siting

6.15 The site is located in a rural position, with the open pastureland on this site and fields to the east forming an important rural gap between the villages of Ditchling and Keymer. This rural character contributes to the rural setting of the nearby villages and is typical of the undeveloped attractive landscape within the South Downs National Park.

6.16 The proposed development would introduce a large residential curtilage of 115m wide by 62m deep in this prominent location to the front of the existing barns, readily seen from the B2116 to the south. The proposal would change the use of a large swathe of current agricultural land, appearing as large residential ‘island’ that is unrelated to any surrounding development and land use. The appearance of this land, and its associated residential paraphernalia, would be alien and intrusive in this rural locality. The visual impact of this is worsened by the prominence of the site forward of the existing barns and readily visible from the B2116 to the south and surrounding footpaths to the north. Although the site does not occupy the entire swathe of undeveloped land between Ditchling and Keymer, the extent of the site and its location in front of existing barns will introduce a new residential use in this prominent location and have an impact on the rural setting of Keymer village and the undeveloped gap between villages. The development therefore fails be sited in a manner that is sensitive to this locality or integrates with the natural environment. The proposed siting and scale of this site would therefore fail to conserve the natural beauty of this part of the South Downs National Park and would harm the attractive and open nature of the countryside.

6.17 The significant visual impact of development is also worsened by the siting of the proposed dwelling itself. This dwelling is located 45 metres from the nearest barn and 120m from the nearest properties in the Silverdale estate to the west. It is located on a building line 45m ahead of other built form on this site. As a result the dwelling will appear as a large bulk of built form that is unrelated to any other development, even the barns themselves. This siting, combined with the building’s scale, would emphasise the presence of the property and result in it imposing itself on the rural landscape. The siting of the dwelling therefore also fails to conserve the natural beauty of the National Park and its layout and alignment fail to relate to neighbouring buildings, as required by national and local planning policy. The dwelling would also not be well related to existing farm buildings or other dwellings, as advised in paragraph 11 of Annexe A the previous PPS7.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 17/07/13 Scale and Design

6.18 As well as the size of the site and location of the dwelling well ahead of the building line, the dwelling is not considered to have a scale, design or appearance that is appropriate for this location or for the intended use.

6.19 In terms of scale, the building size is within the 160 square metre footprint usually accepted for agricultural dwellings. Furthermore, this is a large land holding that may justify a dwelling of this larger size. However, the design and appearance of the dwelling is considered to over accentuate this scale and lead to the appearance of an overly large property that imposes itself on the locality. The dwelling has been designed with rooms in the roof but the scale of development on the first floor results in a full two storey appearance to the dwelling. This is evidenced by the south elevation, facing the B2116, which has a two storey eaves height and high ridge resulting in a large flank on this prominent elevation. The scale is exacerbated by the 8m ridge, set well above the first floor accommodation. To the east and west elevations, also prominent from the B2116, the building has a top heavy and disproportionately large roof space, with the east elevation also containing awkward eaves heights and roof forms in an attempt to reduce the bulk of the building. In terms of design, the dwelling has a high quality and ornate appearance that is out of context with the functional and utilitarian designed dwellings usually seen as stockman’s cottages or agricultural accommodation.

6.20 This scale and design, combined with the prominent forward siting of the dwelling, is considered to result in a development that imposes itself on the rural locality and is unacceptably at odds with the more modest scale and character of agricultural buildings to which it should relate. The dwelling therefore fails to integrate into the natural and built environment or respect the massing, height and appearance of neighbouring buildings or the immediate agricultural area, contrary to Policy ST3 of the Local Plan and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Highways impact and access

6.21 PPS7 made it clear that issues such as access are also for consideration when determining applications for agricultural dwellings. ESCC Highways have therefore been consulted on this application and recommend refusal due to the substandard visibility, width and layout of the access and the creation of further hazards caused by this development. It is also noted that these issues can be overcome with the creation of an access width of 5 metres for 11 metres into the site together with 6 metres junction radii; gates being set back 11 metres from the back of the highway; and achievement of the appropriate visibility splays. However, the application is determined on the basis of the plans currently submitted. As these plans result in a recommendation for refusal on other grounds, this reason for refusal is also included for reasons of transparency and to notify the applicant of the issues that must be addressed in any resubmission or appeal.

Conclusion

6.22 Having consulted the Agricultural Estates Advisor, it is evident that all tests are met with regard to a functional and financial need. There are also no other dwellings in the locality within ‘sight and sound’ of the farm that could meet this need. Although the farm has operated to date with no on site accommodation, the established unit would justify a new dwelling and result in better farm management at this growing agricultural enterprise. However, PPS7 also makes it clear that the proposal should be reasonable in all other respects, with other guidance within the NPPF encouraging good design and a development that integrates with the environment. The site lies in a prominent position within the South Downs National Park, where development must conserve the natural

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 17/07/13 beauty of the Park. It is considered that the proposal fails to conserve this natural beauty due to the siting, scale and design of both the dwelling and its associated curtilage having a harmful and imposing visual impact on the locality. This adverse impact is considered so great that the application is recommended for refusal on this ground, in addition to the highway concerns raised.

7. RECOMMENDATION

That the application be refused.

Reasons for refusal:

1) The proposed development, by virtue of the siting, scale and design of the dwelling and its associated extensive curtilage, would fail to conserve the natural beauty of the South Downs National Park. The development fails to integrate with the built and natural environment or respect this sensitive countryside location and the layout, alignment, scale and appearance of neighbouring buildings. The development would therefore have an adverse impact on both the visual amenity and landscape character of this part of the National Park countryside, contrary to the purposes of the National Park; guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012; and Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan.

2) The existing access at its junction with Keymer Road [B2116] has substandard visibility, width and layout and existing hazards would be increased by the additional slowing, stopping, turning and reversing traffic which would be created, contrary to Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

This decision is based on the following submitted plans/documents:

PLAN TYPE DATE RECEIVED REFERENCE

Design & Access Statement 15.08.2012

Planning Statement/Brief 15.08.2012 AGRICULTURAL

Biodiversity Checklist 15.08.2012 SURVEY SEPT 2011

Location Plan 15.08.2012 1.01

Block Plans 15.08.2012 1.01

Location Plan 15.08.2012 2.01 A

Block Plans 15.08.2012 2.01 A

Proposed Elevations 15.08.2012 2.02 A

Roof Plans 15.08.2012 2.02 A

Proposed Floor Plans 15.08.2012 2.02 A

Planning Statement/Brief 29.08.2012 LANDSCAPE/VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 17/07/13 INFORMATIVE(S)

1. The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and determining the application, clearly setting out the reason(s) for refusal, thereby allowing the Applicant the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied as part of a revised scheme. The Local Planning Authority is willing to provide pre-application advice and advise on the best course of action in respect of any future application for a revised development.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 17/07/13

Appendix 1

My Ref: RCW/LD/11/05

Your Ref: PA/11/10/980/NP

17th January 2012

Planning Services Lewes District Council Southover House Southover Road Lewes East Sussex BN7 1AB

Dear Sirs,

Planning application for an agricultural dwelling on land adjacent to the pumping station, Keymer Road, Ditchling also referred to on the application papers as Court Farm, Keymer Road, Ditchling

1. Description

i The applicants have farmed in the area of East and West Sussex for a number of years and I note from the supporting agricultural statement that the applicant is the third generation to run the enterprise.

ii The enterprise is based on a number of holdings. These are:-

Waterhall Farm, Brighton – a three hundred hectare grassland unit held on a secure Agricultural Holding Act 1986 tenancy from the Brighton and Hove City Council. Patcham Court Farm, Brighton. A 178 hectare grassland holding under the terms of a 10 year Farm Business tenancy from the same authority which commenced in September 2009. Lower Wapses Farm, Twineham a freehold 45 hectare grassland unit. Court Farm, Ditchling (subject farm) a freehold 38 hectare grassland unit with an additional 18 hectares of rented grassland adjoining. There are a further 80 hectares of grass held on a number of grazing agreements within a 15 mile radius of Court Farm.

- 1 - 2. Buildings

At Court Farm there are two livestock buildings each 30 metres x 15 metres.

Other buildings available to the applicant are a cattle building on the rented ground at Waterhall and a machinery store which is unsuitable for livestock farming on freehold land at Devils Dyke. There is a sheep shed on the owned land at Lower Wapses Farm.

3. Existing use

i The applicant runs a mixed beef and sheep breeding and rearing enterprise. I note from the supporting statement that the livestock numbers on the 30th June last year consisted of a suckler herd of 288 cows, 9 bulls, 87 heifers due to enter the breeding herd. These are all breeding animals.

ii The progeny produced by these breeding animals are reared as finished fat cattle and consist of 135 two year old steers, 126 one year old heifers, 137 one year old steers, 124 bull calves and 128 heifer calves.

iii In addition to the beef livestock there are 500 breeding ewes.

4. Proposal

i To erect a stockmans dwelling as shown on drawing number 2.02 Revision A dated the 4th May 2011 and prepared by Folks architects.

ii The two storey dwelling will be of brick and tile construction.

iii The gross floor area as scaled from this drawing measured externally is about 169 square metres.

iv Ground floor accommodation consists of a utility room, kitchen/dining area, hall, cloakroom, sitting room and office with three bedrooms one en suite and a separate bathroom at first floor level.

5. PPS7

i Government advice regarding agricultural, forestry and other occupational dwellings is contained in Annexe A.

ii Specific advice regarding permanent agricultural dwellings is contained in Paragraph 3.

iii 3 i requires there to be a clearly established existing functional need. The functional test is set out in Paragraph 4 and states:-

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

-2- 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.

The enterprise has been established for many years and there is a clearly established functional need for a dedicated stockman to be on site to satisfy the criterion contained in 4 i and to be readily available at most times to address the proper functioning of the enterprise. iv 3 ii relates the need to a full time worker or one who is primarily employed in agriculture and does not relate to a full time requirement.

This criterion is satisfied. The labour requirement created by the cattle numbers alone set out in paragraph 3 i and ii above is equivalent to 1495 Standard Man Days. A full time worker creates a requirement of 275 Standard Man Days. v 3 iii requires the unit and the agricultural activity concerned to have been established for at least three years, have been profitable for at least one of them, are currently financially sound, and have a clear prospect of remaining so.

Clearly the enterprise has been established for more than three years. The benchmark figure necessary to satisfy the financial test requirement is a net farm income equivalent to the standard agricultural workers wage which is currently £13,729 per annum. The applicants agent has provided me with professionally prepared accounts and I can confirm this benchmark figure is exceeded by a significant amount. I consider that the criterion contained in this paragraph is satisfied. vi 3 iv deals with the functional need not being 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.

There is no dwelling on site. The only owned dwelling is at Twineham and is occupied by the applicant. There are two semi-detached cottages on the Waterhall land which are short term agreements held from the Brighton and Hove City Council. Both these cottages are 12 miles away and are occupied respectively by a tractor driver and a stockman. I consider that the distance is too far to satisfy the functional test requirements as stated above. To date much of the calfings have taken place outside with only regular visits by a stockman. The number of breeding animals has increased over the years and outside calving whilst a natural process does increase the likelihood of more mortalities and does not concur with animal welfare advice contained in the DEFRA Code of Welfare for Suckler Cows.

-3- To address these issues the calving cows will be accommodated in the Court Farm buildings. They will be calved in batches with each batch taking no longer than three months starting in February.

vii 3 v is concerned with other planning requirements such as relation to access or impact on the countryside.

These are planning matters and for your determination.

6. Conclusion

i The proposed calving pattern and programme at Court Farm will better serve the applicants beef enterprise. It will address animal welfare issues and will also lessen the need for unnecessary travelling around the various parcels of land which to date has been the case. It will also address environmental concerns of unsustainability and unnecessary traffic movement.

ii The application is a genuine matter and I consider that it satisfies the requirements contained in Paragraph 3 of Annexe A of PPS7 for a permanent dwelling to be at Court Farm.

iii I would however make the point that the usual gross floor area for an agricultural dwelling is a maximum of 160 square metres used by local planning authorities in East and West Sussex. I have calculated the gross floor area to be 169 square metres and thus you may wish to have the dwelling on a slightly reduced size.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Wood, MRICS, FAAV, MRAC

-4-