AL1 S15/2308 Target Decision Date:8th October 2015 Committee Date:5th April 2016

Applicant Mr & Mrs G Atkinson Folkingham Farms South Lodge Folkingham Road Pickworth Agent Mr Jim Grundy JHG Planning Consultancy Ltd Orchard House Main Road Welbourn Proposal Erection of two storey detached agricultural dwelling and detached garage Location High Park Farm Nr Aslackby Application Type Full Planning Permission Parish(es) Aslackby And Laughton Parish Council

Reason for Referral to Cllr. Moseley requested that the application be determined by the Committee DC Committee. Recommendation Refused

Key Issues

 Impat on the rural character of the area  Compliance with relevant local and national policies  Impact on farming activity on site

Technical Documents Submitted with the Application

 Site Plan  Agricultural dwelling justification report  Elevation plans  Floor plan

Enquires about this report to : Abiola Labisi Area Planning Officer 6632 [email protected]

59 60 1.0 Description of site and application

1.1 The site is located at High Park Farm Aslackby, Sleaford, Lincolnshire. The square shaped site is located in the open countryside and accessed via a farm track. The site is within a pipeline buffer zone.

1.2 The proposal relates to the erection of a detached two storey dwelling house and detached garage. The dwelling house would cover an area of approx. 13.7m x 13m and would be approx. 9.2m in height. The construction materials have not been specified. The garage would be approx. 10m x7m in area with an overall height of approx. 6.2m.

2.0 Relevant History

Reference Proposal Decision Date S09/2625 Erection of country house with associated Approved 04/05/2010 2 no. 15m wind turbines and landscaping Conditionally

3.0 Policy Considerations

3.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Section 6 - Wide choice of high quality homes

3.2 District Council Core Strategy Policy SP1 - Spatial Strategy

4.0 SKDC Corporate Priorities Support good housing for all

5.0 Representations Received

Environment Agency No objection.

LCC Highways & SuDS Support No objection

SKDC Projects Officer (Drainage) No Comment Received.

Adviced that there is no functional need for the dwelling.

Health & Safety Executive No objection.

6.0 Representations as a Result of Publicity

6.1 One submission was received during the period of public consultation. It is stated in the submission that there is no objection to the proposal provided it is on the site of the previous farmhouse.

7.0 Evaluation

7.1 Principle of the use

7.1.1 The proposal relates to the erection of a two storey detached dwelling and garage which applicant has stated would be for an agricultural worker. In principle, the development is considered unacceptable for policy reasons set out below.

7.1.2 Core Strategy Policy SP1 (Spatial Strategy) sets out a framework to guide the location of development throughout the district. The Policy provides that new development in the district 61 shall be ocussed on , followed by the market towns of Stamford, Bourne and the Deepings. The policy also allows for some development in the Local Service Centres in order to enable them discharge their roles as Local service Centres.

7.1.3 The site is located outside Aslackby which is not identified as a Local Service Centre under Core Strategy SP2 (Sustainable Communities) and is in an open country location.

7.1.4 With regard to development in the open countryside, Core Strategy Policy SP1 states that:

7.1.5 In all other villages and the countryside development will be restricted. Proposals will only be considered acceptable if they are sites for:

A. affordable housing (rural exception or allocated sites) B. agriculture, forestry or equine development C. rural diversification projects D. local services and facilities E. replacement buildings (on a like for like basis); or F. conversions of buildings provided that the existing building(s): contribute to the character and appearance of the local area by virtue of their historic, traditional or vernacular form; are in sound structural condition; and are suitable for conversion without substantial alteration, extension or rebuilding, and that the works to be undertaken do not detract from the character of the building(s) or their setting.

7.1.6 The applicant has stated that the dwelling would be for an agricultural worker and would therefore be in accordance with one of the exemptions set out under Core Strategy Policy SP1.

7.1.7 With regard to rural economy, para 28 of the National Planning Policy Framework provides that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. This notwithstanding, the National Planning Policy Framework emphasises a presumption in favour of sustainable development and in this regard, the NPPF requires that the three dimensions of sustainable development viz economic, social and environment should always be considered together as they are mutually dependent. Accordingly, para 8 of the Framework states that:

7.1.8 Therefore, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions'.

7.1.9 With regard to guiding development to sustainable solutions in relation to development in the open countryside, paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that:

7.2. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as:

(i) the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or, (ii) where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or, (iii) where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or,

(iv) the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling. Such a design should: - be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; - reflect the highest standards in architecture; - significantly enhance its immediate setting; and - be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.

62 7.2.1 Having regard to the above provision of the NPPF, the proposed development which constitutes an isolated home in the open countryside should only be permitted where there is a demonstrated essential need for the agricultural worker to live permanently at or near the farm.

7.2.2 In this instance, applicant has stated that the dwelling is required in order to provide security for the storage building on site in order to prevent break-ins. Applicant has submitted a map showing land in their ownership and that rented. They have also submitted that the tenancy on the rented land would soon end after which they would only operate from the subject farm and would need a dwelling on site. Applicant has also referred to the activities of poachers which they claim damage their crops.

7.2.3 The applicant has also stated that there was a dwelling on the application site which was demolished many years ago.

7.2.4 The applicant was requested to provide details of any cases of break-ins that had been experienced on site, materials lost and the value of the materials lost. With regard to break-ins, the applicant has stated that there has not been any case of break-in because nothing of value is currently stored on site. It is considered that there has not been a demonstrated existing functional need for the dwelling and accordingly, the proposal would not be acceptable in principle.

7.3. Assessment of essential need

7.3.1 Whilst the NPPF requires that isolated homes in the open countryside should only be allowed where an essential need has been demonstrated, it is in practice silent on how this need should be assessed. Accordingly, local Planning Authorities rely on the cancelled Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS 7) published by the Government in 2004 as the framework for assessing essential needs with regard to agricultural dwellings.

7.3.2 Paragraph 3 of Annex A of PPS 7 addresses permanent agricultural dwellings and states clearly that:

7.3.3 New permanent dwellings should only be allowed to support existing agricultural activities on well-established agricultural units, providing:

7.3.4 (i) there is a clearly established existing functional need (ii) the need relates to a full-time worker, or one who is primarily employed in agriculture (iii) the unit and the agricultural activity concerned 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 (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 planning requirements, e.g. in relation to access, or impact on the countryside, are satisfied.

7.3.5 Furthermore, PPS 7 provides under para 4 of Annex A that:

7.3.6 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.

63 7.3.7 With regard to the first requirement, it is considered that an existing functional need has not been demonstrated in this case. Para 4 of Annex A of PPS 7 notes that essential need to deal with emergencies that could cause serious loss of crops or products due to frost damage or failure of automatic systems constitute a ground for approval of applications for new permanent agricultural dwellings. In this case, applicant has stated that the dwelling is required for security reasons. The reason does not relate to loss of crops due to frost damage for example neither does it relate to any loss due to failure of automatic systems. It is considered that the reason given for the proposed erection of a new dwelling on the site can be addressed via other means without necessarily erecting a new dwelling on site.

7.3.8 In addition, the applicant has stated that there has not been any case of break-ins due to the fact that nothing of value is currently stored on site. There is therefore no EXISTING functional need at this point in time.

7.3.9 In relation to the second requirement, the applicant has stated that the dwelling is for a full time agricultural worker and has submitted documents showing that the farm's labour requirements. An existing functional need for the dwelling has not been demonstrated. This requirement needs to be fulfilled before considering whether the worker is employed full or part time. However, in the event of permission being granted, it is recommended that a condition be attached to any such permission restricting the occupation of the dwelling to persons employed full time on the farm, and their relatives where applicable.

7.4. With regard to the third requirement, the applicant has submitted financial documents relating to the entire farm holding (owned and tenanted). The documents confirm that the business is viable. However, it should be noted that the documents relate to the entire farmholding and not High Park Farm to which the proposed dwelling relates. At this stage, it is difficult to assess the long term viability of High Park Farm as a stand-alone farm and therefore, it is considered that the application is premature and does not comply with the third criteria.

7.4.1 In relation to the fourth requirement, Para 3 of Annex A of PPS 7 notes that where 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, then this could be considered a reason for approving a new dwelling on a farm in a rural area. In this case, the particular farm forms part of an overall holding comprising of owned and tenanted lands. Document provided in support of the application indicates that there are other dwellings within the overall holding but on tenanted lands. There has not been any demonstration of the number of existing dwellings neither has there been any demonstration that the need for a new dwelling cannot be met within the existing dwellings.

7.4.2 It is noted that the applicant has mentioned that house prices in the area are significantly higher than the cost of building the proposed dwelling and that if the applicant were to buy a house in the area, it would affect the viability of the business. Para. 9 of Annex A of PPS 7 states that:

7.4.3 'Agricultural dwellings should be of a size commensurate with the established functional requirement. Dwellings that are unusually large in relation to the agricultural needs of the unit, or unusually expensive to construct in relation to the income it can sustain in the long-term, should not be permitted. It is the requirements of the enterprise, rather than those of the owner or occupier, that are relevant in determining the size of dwelling that is appropriate to a particular holding'.

7.4.4 It is noted that the proposed dwelling is substantially large and applicant has not demonstrated that High Park Farm on its own (i.e. without tenanted lands) would be capable of supporting the investment in the proposed dwelling. The Agricultural Consultant has adviced that the general practice is that agricultural dwellings on a farm land of the size of High Park Farm should normally not exceed 185 square metres in floor area for it to be considered commensurate with the established functional need. In this case, the proposed dwelling would be approx 350 square metres in area. The proposed building is therefore considered excessive in size in comparison with the farm holding which it is to serve. 64 7.4.5 Finally, PPS 7 also requires that the proposal shall fulfil other planning requirements. In this regard, it is considered that the Local Planning Authority's Spatial Strategy as set out under Core Strategy Policy SP1 is a planning requirement that should be complied with. Policy SP1 provides a framework guiding the location of new development within the district and notes that development in open countrysides would be resisted, unless in certain circumstances. Specifically, the policy provides that in all cases planning permission will only be granted on a less sustainable site where it has been proven that there are no other more sustainable options available or there are other overriding material considerations. No overriding material consideration has been demonstrated in this instance.

7.4.6 Accordingly, the proposed residential development in an isolated rural location without a demonstrated essential/functional need would be contrary to relevant local and national policies.

7.5 Recommendations of the local Planning Authority's Agricultural dwelling consultant

7.5.1 The local Planning Authority sought the opinion of an agricultural dwelling consultant in the course of assessing this application. The consultant has advised that there is no agricultural support for the proposed dwelling. The consultant's report concludes thus:

7.5.2 'In conclusion, I advise that there is no agricultural support for the proposed agricultural workers dwelling as there are dwellings on the existing overall holding which are currently fulfilling the limited essential/functional needs of this large arable holding. In addition, I consider the proposed dwelling is unusually large in relation to the agricultural needs of the unit as the proposed dwelling is required primarily for the security of the farm buildings and their contents, at High park Farm which does not comply with the criteria in the Framework or Annex A to PPS7'.

7.6 Impact of the use on the character of the area

7.6.1 Core Strategy Policy EN1 (Protection and enhancement of the character of the district) requires that development must be appropriate to the character and significant natural, historic and cultural attributes and features of the landscape within which it is situated, and contribute to its conservation, enhancement or restoration.

7.6.2 The proposed development would be located within an agricultural landholding and would be erected in close proximity to an agricultural building. Furthermore, the development would not be visible from the public highway. Having regard to the foregoing, it is considered that the development would not lead to a significant adverse impact on the character of the area.

7.7 Impact on the neighbouring properties

7.7.1 Apart from the storage building, there is no other property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. The development will therefore not impact adversely on neighbouring properties.

7.8 Highway issues

7.8.1 The local Highways Authority has advised that they have no objection to the proposal.

7.9 Conclusion

7.9.1 Although the applicant has stated that the development is for an agricultural worker and should therefore be considered under the exemptions set out under Core Strategy Policy SP1, it is noted that an existing essential need as required by the NPPF has not been demonstrated in this case.

65 7.9.2 The applicant also provided evidence that there was a dwelling on site but the dwelling had been demolished many years prior to the submission of the current application and the site has reverted to its original state. In its definition of previously developed land, the NPPF specifically provides under Annex 2 that such land excludes land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time. Any remains of the previous dwelling on site have blended into the landscape. The site is therefore considered a greenfield site, where developments of the proposed nature would not normally be acceptable.

7.9.3 It is noted further that the applicant has submitted that permission was granted for a dwelling on the farm under S09/2625 thus establishing the principle of acceptability of a new dwelling on the site. It should be noted however that permission was granted in that instance not because new dwellings would be acceptable on the site but because the proposal met the requirements of a certain exception under PPS7. The case Officer (re S09/2625) did mention in the report that:

7.9.4 'The application is submitted as an exception to the normal restriction on housing in the open countryside. It relies specifically on advice in PPS7 which states:

7.9.5 'Very occasionally the exceptional quality and innovative design of a proposed, isolated new house may provide this special justification for granting of planning permission. Should such a design be truly outstanding and ground-breaking, for example, in its use of materials, methods of construction or its contribution to protecting and enhancing the environment, so helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas. The value of such a building will be found in its reflection of the highest standards in contemporary architecture, the significant enhancement of its immediate setting and its sensitivity to the defining characteristics of the local area'.

7.9.6 The two circumstances are therefore not the same and it would not be appropriate to rely on permission granted under S09/2625 as establishing the principle of acceptability of a new dwelling on the farm.

7.9.7 Having regard to the foregoing, it is considered that the proposed development in the open countryside, without a clear demonstration of a functional need, would be contrary to relevant local and national policies. Accordingly, it is recommended that permission be refused.

8.0 Crime and Disorder

8.1 It is considered that the proposal would not result in any significant crime and disorder implications.

9.0 Human Rights Implications

9.1 Articles 6 (Rights to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act have been taken into account in making this recommendation.

9.2 It is considered that no relevant Article of that act will be breached.

66 10.0 RECOMMENDATION: that the development is refused for the following reasons

1. The application site is located within the open countryside and therefore not considered a sustainable location for new development unless it meets certain criteria set out in Core Strategy policy SP1 and paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework - the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside. It is considered that an existing essential need for an agricultural worker has not been satisfactorily demonstrated and as a result the proposed development does not comply with the criteria for such a development in Core Strategy policy SP1 or paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework. There are no other overriding material considerations which justify a new dwelling on this site.

Notwithstanding that the proposed new dwelling is not justified on the basis of an essential need for an agricultural worker, the proposed dwelling would be of an excessive size in relation to the farm holding for which it is to serve.

There is a fundamental policy objection to the proposal and it is considered that this cannot be overcome. In order to avoid the applicant incurring further abortive costs, consideration has not been delayed by discussions which cannot resolve the reasons for refusal and a decision has been issued in a timely fashion. As such it is considered that the decision is in accordance with paras 186 -187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

67 Location Plan

68 Elevations and Block Plan

Farmholding

69