APPLICATION NUMBER: WD/D/18/000154

APPLICATION SITE: SILVERHAY FARM, NETHERHAY, DRIMPTON, , DT8 3RH

PROPOSAL: Erect Farmhouse (without compliance with condition 4 of outline planning permission 1/W/81/00263)

APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Hedditch

CASE OFFICER: Joanne Langrish-Merritt

WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr Ms J Sewell

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Refuse

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: 1.1 The application is a Variation of condition 4 of planning permission ref. 1/W/81/000263 (the full application) to remove the occupancy limitation in respect of Silverhay Farmhouse.

The condition states;

'The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed or last employed, prior to retirement in the locality in agriculture as defined in Section 290 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, or in forestry (including any dependent of such a person residing with him) or widow or widower of such a person.'

Reason: To ensure that the dwelling is reserved for occupation by agricultural workers and their dependants

1.2 The site is located on the northern side of the village of Drimpton in the small hamlet of Netherhay. It is located outside of a defined development boundary and is therefore regarded in policy terms as being in the countryside. The property is a four bedroom dwelling with 0.1ha of associated land.

1.3 Outside of DDB’s as set out in the adopted Local Plan new open market dwellings are not permitted unless through the conversion of existing buildings and even then they would be subject to limitations. The proposal sought i.e. the removal of an occupancy restriction is, therefore, contrary to the policies of the adopted local plan. Notwithstanding the fact that the site lies outside of any defined development boundary it is within walking distance of some local facilities and services but they are located in Drimpton - some 0.5km to the public house, along a narrow rural lane mainly without footpaths.

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT: 2.2 This is a further application to have the agricultural occupancy condition lifted following a previously withdrawn application ref no.WD/D/14/001194. The variation of condition would be for the removal of condition 4 of the approved full application ref. 1/W/81/000263.

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:

Application No. Application Decision Date of decision Description WD/D/14/001194 Removal of Withdrawn 18 July 2014 condition 4 of planning approval ref 1/W/80/672 and condition 1 of planning approval ref 1/W/81/263 to remove agricultural tie

1/W/80/000672. Develop Land By Approved 28-Nov-1980 Erection Of A Farmhouse (outline) 1/W/81/000263 Erect Farmhouse Approved 04-Jun-1981 (full)

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES:

4.1 National Planning Policy Framework The following sections of the NPPF are relevant to the determination of this application:

Part 3:Supporting a prosperous rural economy Part 6: Providing a wide choice of homes As far as this application is concerned the following sections of the NPPF are considered to be relevant;

Para 186 - Local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development. The relationship between decision-taking and plan-making should be seamless, translating plans into high quality development on the ground.

Para 187 - Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

Cancelled circular 11/95 With the exception of Appendix A (model conditions) which is retained, circular 11/95 has been cancelled and replaced by new planning practice guidance launched 6 March 2014. The guidance of circular 11/95 is still the up to date relevant source for determining whether or not it is appropriate to remove an agricultural occupancy condition. This indicates that the test of whether there is a need for such dwellings in the vicinity will determine whether the dwelling should be reserved for that purpose. It states: Paragraph 105

Where an agricultural occupancy condition has been imposed it will not be appropriate to remove it on a subsequent application unless it is shown that the existing need for dwellings for agricultural workers in the locality no longer warrants reserving the house for that purpose. This assessment will be necessary in all cases, including those where the condition was originally inappropriately imposed (Sevenoaks DC v Secretary of State for the Environment and Mr and Mrs Geer (1995)69 P.& C.R.87). However, the fact that planning permission for a dwelling would in all probability be granted today without an agricultural occupancy condition is a material consideration (Hambleton DC v Secretary of State for the Environment and others [1994] EGCS 202).

4.2 Adopted West and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015)

As far as this application is concerned the following policies are considered to be relevant.

INT1 – Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development SUS2 – Distribution of Development HOUS6 – Other residential development outside of defined development boundaries

5. OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 5.1 None

6. HUMAN RIGHTS: 6.1 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property

This Recommendation is based on adopted Development Plan policies, the application of which does not prejudice the Human Rights of the applicant or any third party.

7. PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITIES DUTY: 7.1 As set out in the Equalities Act 2010, all public bodies, in discharging their functions must have “due regard” to this duty. There are 3 main aims:- • Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics • Taking steps to meet the needs of people with certain protected characteristics where these are different from the needs of other people • Encouraging people with certain protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where participation is disproportionately low.

Whilst there is no absolute requirement to fully remove any disadvantage the Duty is to have “regard to” and remove OR minimise disadvantage and in considering the merits of this planning application the planning authority has taken into consideration the requirements of the PSED

8. CONSULTATIONS: 8.1 Natural – No comment

8.2 DCC Highways - no objections

8.3 DCP Environmental Health Officer has no objection

8.4 Parish Council - Broadwindsor Group Parish Council has been consulted on this application and makes no objection. The Council understands and appreciates the reason for the inclusion of an agricultural tie as part of the planning process, which often helps to ensure succession and operational efficiency. However, changes in agricultural policy and practices over recent years have demonstrated that there are circumstances in which they should be removed and a review should be made on a case by case basis. The removal of an agricultural occupancy condition should be considered against a realistic assessment of the existing need for it, from both the holding itself and the wider local area.

With regard to this application, the landholding to which it relates has been substantially reduced and the house itself cannot be justified as an agricultural dwelling. The applicant has served the agricultural sector for many years and now retired, wishes to sell his home. Through marketing of the property and extensive contact with the local agricultural sector, the applicant has demonstrated that there is no demand for the dwelling from agricultural workers in the general locality. There was much discussion amongst Councillors as to whether the dwelling has remained affordable to the farming community. The Parish Council believes that this condition had outlived its usefulness.

8.5 District Valuer – see commentary below

9. REPRESENTATIONS: 9.1 One letter of support and two letters of objection have been received. The main focus of the objections relates to the ownership of additional land and the possibility of passing the house on to other members of the family.

9.2 There has also been significant local support from the Ward Member Cllr Sewell.

10. PLANNING ISSUES:

Principle of development in relation to:  The need for agricultural tied farm houses  The evidence of marketing to see if a need for agricultural occupancy exists  The principle of permitting an unrestricted agricultural dwelling in the open countryside and housing land supply

11. PLANNING ASSESSMENT:

11.1 Principle

11.2 The principle considerations are threefold, namely whether there is a continuing need for agriculturally tied farm houses, whether there is any evidence that no agricultural workers have come forward following marketing, and whether it is appropriate to allow an unrestricted dwelling in this isolated open countryside location.

11.3 These requirements stem from the advice in Circular 11/95 paragraph 105 which although cancelled still has relevance for assessment. It advises that where an agricultural occupancy condition has been imposed, it will not be appropriate to remove it on a subsequent application, unless it is shown that the existing need for dwellings for agricultural workers in the locality no longer warrants reserving the house for that purpose. This assessment will be necessary in all cases. In addition para 55 of the NPPPF states;

55. To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes 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

11.4 Members may recall an appeal was dismissed for the removal of a similar occupancy condition at Golden Cap View Marshwood (application reference WD/D/15/001252 and Appeal Ref: APP/F1230/W/15/3134993), in relation to the fact that there was still a proven need for a farm workers dwelling in that part of the district. However a subsequent application was then approved (WD/D/17/001132) removing that condition after that further application was submitted with additional marketing information. In addition a similar application at a site called Highway Farm at Miles Cross (application reference WD/D/16/000551 and appeal ref. APP/F1230/W/17/3175581) was refused and an appeal dismissed in Sept 2017.

11.5 A planning history search, revealed how many new properties had been granted permission up and until 2017 in the Councils western area and which were also subject to an agricultural occupancy condition. In total 14 planning permissions have been granted over a 9 year period within the western part of the district. These include:

* 1/D/09/1468 - Brigs Farm, Wootton Fitzpaine * 1/D/09/0731 - Honeydown Farm, * 1/D/10/0690 - Newlands Farm, Mosterton * 1/D/10/1312 - Long Orchard Farm, Ryall * 1/D/10/0733 - Beerhall Farm, Hawkchurch * 1/D/10/1264 - The Old Dairy, West Bay * 1/D/11/0970 - Batts Farm, Pilsdon * 1/D/11/0240 - Greenford Farm, Compton Valence * 1/D/12/0987 - Grighay Farm, Thorncombe * 1/D/12/1024 - Marsh Farm, Powerstock * 1/D/12/1687 - Westcombe Farm, Hooke * 1/D/13/0919 - Highlands Farm, Templemans Ash * 1/D/14/2893 - Westleaze Farm, Beaminster * 1/D/14/3075 - Mabey Farm, Pilsdon * 1/D/15/0041 – Greenhill Farm, Maiden Newton * 1/D/15/2916 – Barn Acres, Corscombe * 1/D/16/0964 – South Wraxhall Farm * 1/D/17/0107 – Ratleigh Farm

11.6 This indicates that there is a continued need for agricultural workers dwellings in the District and on the face of it this would not support the removal of the condition in this case despite the reduction in the land holding area that is associated with the dwelling – now 0.1ha. The removal of the condition would result in the loss of housing stock for an agricultural worker and this would have an impact on the variety of dwellings in the rural area. A mix of housing is required in order to provide for the needs of different groups in the community and in this instance the need for agricultural workers’ dwellings is considered to be relevant.

11.7 The evidence of marketing for agricultural occupancy The application documentation highlights that the applicant has marketed the property for sale. The property has been marketed for a period of 12 months between the dates of March 2014-March 2015. This was at a price of £495,000. There was very little interest with no viewings and no offers. The applicants have now resumed their marketing exercise with the same price of £495,000. As part of that exercise the agent has contacted 24 practising farmers within a 4km radius notifying them of its availability. Fifteen responses have been received all of which were negative. Officers consider that it is essential to carry out the marketing exercise for between 12 and 18 months, at a realistic price reflecting the occupancy condition and marketed in a range of appropriate ways. Although it is recognised that there may no longer be sufficient land associated with the site to function as a working farm, the land alone would not be a sufficient factor to determine whether or not a farm worker would want to buy the farmhouse. A farm worker may have land elsewhere to farm and simply need a dwelling house. The argument about the associated land therefore fails to justify the removing of the occupancy condition.

11.8 Marketing details of the price of the dwelling have been submitted to the District Valuer. The District Valuer has considered the information that had been submitted and concludes that it is inadequate and requested additional information. The additional information was for at least three comparable sales of agriculturally tied dwellings in the area upon which the asking price was based. The agent for the applicant was not able to supply this information as they were unable to find comparable sites. Cllr Sewell the Ward Member in support of the application has however responded outlining that there are no such agriculturally tied comparable sites nearby. However following a brief internet search by the District Valuer two properties were identified namely:- Trees Farm, Blackmoor, Wellington TA21 9LJ (with a valuation of £595,000) - a four bedroom house with substantially more land than the application site with 12.7 acres and The Noor, Yeovil Road, , DT9 4PX (with a valuation of £385,000) - a four bedroom bungalow with 8.2 acres.

11.9 Officers point out that both properties have significantly more land than the application site but both are subject to agricultural ties. The District Valuer goes on to say that whilst neither property is within the immediate locality of the application site residential dwellings are valued by reference to comparable evidence. If no comparables are available locally then it is necessary to look further afield to find comparable sales. Such comparable sales may then be adjusted for location, size, condition, plot size and other relevant factors. The adjusted market evidence can then be used to form an opinion of value.

11.10 The District Valuer has also advised that “RICS require that residential dwellings are valued by reference to comparable sales evidence. The applicant is asked to give consideration to providing an evidenced based valuation so all can see that the property has been marketed at a realistic value.” In subsequent comments the District Valuer has also commented that:

“I understand that if a planning applicant is saying that they have tried to sell an agriculturally tied property at a price and there is no demand that they are required to evidence the asking price at which it has been marketed. This then demonstrates whether the property has been marketed with an agricultural tie at Market Value taking account of that tie. The only way that they can do that is for a formal valuation to be provided on behalf of the applicant. That formal valuation will evidence the asking price by way of reference to other properties in the area that have sold with such ties or if no comparable sales are available by drawing on comparable sales from a wider area. It appears that they have not done this. How can they therefore demonstrate that the property has been marketed at a realistic price with the current tie attached?”

11.11 This formal valuation has not been provided and as such consideration of the suitability of the asking price cannot be accurately made.

11.12 The evidence shows, given the planning history above that, there is still an agricultural need for rural workers dwellings in the locality and the removal of the condition would result in a reduction in the stock of these tied properties. The dwelling has been marketed for sale; however due to the lack of marketing information submitted with the application a full and proper assessment of the market cannot be made.

11.13 The principle of unrestricted agricultural dwellings in the open countryside and housing land supply In policy terms, the site lies outside any DDB. In principle, residential development is therefore not acceptable as the unrestricted dwelling would lie in the open countryside and would not accord with the provisions of Local Plan Policies INT1 and SUS2 and HOUS6. 11.14 However West Dorset District Council and Weymouth & Portland Borough Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The most recent five-year housing land supply report indicates that the councils have 4.94 years of supply across the local plan area. As a result, relevant policies for the supply of housing in the adopted local plan, including Policy SUS2: Distribution of Development, should not be considered up-to-date and the engagement of paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (i.e. the presumption in favour of sustainable development) has been triggered in relation to this application. 11.15 Although paragraph 14 has been triggered, the policies in the NPPF do not displace the statutory authority given to the ‘development plan’ so the starting point for decision-taking in relation to this application remains the adopted local plan. Whether the harm from the proposal would be outweighed by other material considerations (including the provisions of the NPPF and paragraph 14 in particular) then needs to be considered. 11.16 In the decision on the appeal at Ryme Road, Yetminster, the Inspector provided some commentary on the weight to be attached to Policy SUS2 in decision- taking. She considered that Policy SUS2 could not be afforded full weight because criterion iii) “restricts development outside of the DDB” thus limiting the supply of housing. However, she afforded significant weight to the spatial strategy within the policy, as set out in Criterion i). Since the land supply situation has improved since then (from 4.63 to 4.94 years), it is considered reasonable to afford weight to the different parts of Policy SUS2 in a similar way in determining this application.

11.17 The application needs to be determined under the general provisions in the second part of Paragraph 14, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or meaning that permission should be granted unless the presumption can be displaced on either or both of the grounds set out in the second part of that paragraph.

11.18 The first main issue is whether the proposed development would contribute to achieving a sustainable pattern of development and in particular whether it would accord with the Local Plan’s spatial strategy set out in Policy SUS2. Criterion i) of Policy SUS2 seeks to direct development in rural areas to settlements with DDBs and criterion iii) seeks to ‘strictly control’ development outside DDBs, ‘having particular regard to the need for the protection of the countryside and environmental constraints’. As stated by the Inspector at the recent Supreme Court judgement criterion iii) could not be afforded full weight because it ‘restricts development outside of the DDB’ thus limiting the supply of housing. Given the lack of housing land supply these other locations can now be considered provided that they meet sustainability criteria as identified in national policy. In terms of criterion i) of Policy SUS2, development would not be directed to the larger and more sustainable settlements in the district, as it is located in open countryside.

11.19 In terms of criterion iii) of Policy SUS2, the proposed development:  would be contrary to policy as it is located outside any DDB; but  would not result in harm to the open countryside, as the building exists  would not breach any environmental constraints, and in particular would not cause any harm to the Dorset AONB.  however the loss would create a need elsewhere as evidenced above.

11.20 Although, there is no demonstrable harm in terms of impact on the countryside or environmental constraints, the location of the proposed development outside any DDB weighs against it. However, due to the lack of a five-year supply (and reflecting the Ryme Road, Yetminster Appeal Inspector’s views) this cannot be afforded full weight in decision-taking. It also needs to be recognised that whilst the development would result in an additional unfettered dwelling this small benefit would not counteract the harm caused by the loss of an agricultural workers dwelling in an area that clearly still has a need.

11.21 The NPPF makes clear that “Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development”. Drimpton does not have a defined development boundary but does have a number of services including a, church and pub and village hall. The application site, which is set down an unmade road and some distance from the centre of the village which can only be accessed along a narrow unlit road would not be looked on favourably for an unrestricted property. This adds to the conclusions that the condition should not be removed.

12. CONCLUSION/SUMMARY:

12.1 Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to clearly demonstrate that the property has been marketed at a sufficient value to be comparable with other properties in the area and affordable for an agricultural worker. In addition there is clearly still a need in the area for rural workers dwellings and given the location of the property outside of a DDB would not be in a location where an unrestricted dwelling would be supported. As such the application is considered to be contrary to policy and is recommended for refusal

13. RECOMMENDATION: Refusal is recommended for the following reason:

13.1 Evidence of recent approvals of tied agricultural dwellings in the West Dorset Area in the last few years shows that there is still an agricultural need for rural workers dwellings in the locality. The removal of the condition would result in a reduction in the stock of these tied properties, which can only be justified because they are tied to agricultural worker, given the unsustainable and isolated location within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the site lying outside of any defined development boundary. The dwelling is currently occupied by a retired agricultural worker in compliance with the condition but it is considered that while a marketing exercise has been undertaken insufficient information has been submitted to make a full and proper assessment of the marketing price and whether this would have been suitable or attractive to all agricultural workers looking for an affordable home. As such the proposal therefore fails to follow the steps of national advice at paragraph 105 of Circular 11/95 and Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to national advice and also policies SUS2 and HOUS 6 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan adopted in 2015.