RETAIN DWELLINGHOUSE FOR UNRESTRICTED OCCUPATION RISHLEYS, COSTOCK ______
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
April 2021
RETAIN DWELLINGHOUSE FOR UNRESTRICTED OCCUPATION RISHLEYS, COSTOCK ______
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
April 2021
COPYRIGHT
The contents of this document must not be copied in whole or in part without the written consent of Kernon Countryside Consultants.
Authorised By APK 04/21
Greenacres Barn, Stoke Common Lane, Purton Stoke, Swindon SN5 4LL T: 01793 771333 Email: [email protected] Website: www.kernon.co.uk ______
Directors - Tony Kernon BSc(Hons), MRAC, MRICS, FBIAC Sarah Kernon Chartered Surveyor – Sam Eachus BSc(Hons) MRICS Consultants – Pippa Glanville BSc(Hons), Harriet Thompson
CONTENTS
1 Introduction 2 The Dwelling and its Planning History 3 The Use of the Dwelling 4 Planning Policy of Relevance 5 Policy 11 Assessment 6 Policy 22 Assessment 7 Summary and Conclusions
Appendix KCC1 Original Outline Planning Consent KCC2 Appeal 3143751 KCC3 Appeal 3175902 KCC4 Plan of Agricultural Dwelling Applications Locally KCC5 Graph Average Farm Worker Schemes KCC6 Average Farm Business Incomes KCC7 Rushcliffe Average Salaries KCC8 Properties for Sale Locally Under £200,000
3 KCC3029 SS April 21
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This application seeks the continued use of Rishleys, Main Street, Costock, as an unrestricted residential dwelling. Residents would not need to be employed locally in agriculture, or last employed locally in agriculture.
1.2 46 years ago, in 1975, the Council gave planning consent for a “dwelling house, for agricultural worker”, under consent 8/7/75/D/530. Condition 2 restricted occupation as follows:
“The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person employed or last employed locally in agriculture as defined in Section 290 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, or in forestry, or a dependant of such a person residing with him/her (but including a widow or widower of such a person)”.
1.3 At the time the intended occupant had retired from full-time farming. The justification for the dwelling in those circumstances is not known.
1.4 He and his wife have now passed away. The dwelling has been inherited by their three sons, who have been renovating the dwelling to let on the open market. They have no intention of selling the dwelling.
1.5 The occupancy condition 2 limits occupation to those employed in agriculture locally. That is a very small proportion of the potential occupiers who live in the area. This application seeks to retain the dwelling without the agricultural condition.
1.6 Because the description of the original consent referred to “agricultural worker”, it is not possible to regularise the position by a s73 application to remove the condition. Accordingly full planning consent is sought for the continued unfettered occupation of the dwelling house.
This Report 1.7 This report: • describes the dwelling and its planning history in section 2; • describes its occupation since it was built in section 3; • sets out the relevant planning policy, in summary, in section 4; • assesses the need for the dwelling on the holding in section 5; • assesses the need for the dwelling in the wider area in section 6; • assesses the proposals against planning policy in section 7;
4 KCC3029 SS April 21
• ending with a summary and conclusions in section 8.
Author 1.8 This report has been written by Tony Kernon. I am a Chartered Surveyor and a Fellow of the British Institute of Agricultural Consultants. I have specialised in agricultural dwelling appraisals for the last 35 years.
5 KCC3029 SS April 21
2 THE DWELLING AND ITS PLANNING HISTORY
Planning Consent 2.1 The planning information relates back to the 1970’s and, especially under Covid limitations, is only available to inspect in part.
2.2 The original outline planning consent is attached at Appendix KCC1.
2.3 It is assumed that the dwelling was built in accordance with details that were subsequently submitted to the Council.
The Dwelling Now 2.4 The dwelling now is shown in the photographs below, taken in March 2021. Photos 1-4 : Photo of the Dwelling
6 KCC3029 SS April 21
2.5 The dwelling provides 4 bedrooms. It has a floor area as shown below. Insert 1: Floor Area
7 KCC3029 SS April 21
Associated Land 2.6 Associated with the dwelling are two fields: i) the dwelling itself stands in the corner of a paddock of approximately 1.6 ha. This is the southern part of the two fields shown outlined in red below, and is permanent grassland; ii) further north is an arable field of 7.3 ha, as shown. This land has been let for many years to a nearby farmer for arable farming use, and is also shown below. Insert 2: The Land Holding
2.9 There are no farm buidlings associated with the land. There is a brick garden shed shown in the photographs above, and one brick stable which housed the family’s two horses.
8 KCC3029 SS April 21
3 THE USE OF THE DWELLING
3.1 The reason why planning consent was granted originally is not known, as none of the papers are available for review.
3.2 As far as the Applicant can remember, his father stopped farming full-time in spring 1974.
3.3 The dwelling was granted outline planning consent in 1975. Therefore the reason why the dwelling was permitted is not known or understood.
3.4 From 1975 – 1979/80 Mr McDonogh worked part-time for a local arable farmer, and continued on a casual basis until 1983.
3.5 After that he worked, it is believed as a volunteer, for the Peter Le Marchant Trust with canal barges. He stopped in the late 1980’s / early 1990’s. He passed away in December 2009 aged 91.
3.6 His widow continued to live in the dwelling. She passed away in October 2020.
3.7 For many years the small 1.6 ha field was used for the family’s two horses. A contractor was engaged to make hay from the larger field. The family kept enough for their horses, and the contractor took the rest in lieu of paying rental.
3.8 From the early 2000’s a local farmer has rented the larger field for arable cropping purposes.
9 KCC3029 SS April 21
4 PLANNING POLICY OF RELEVANCE
4.1 There is limited planning policy or guidance of direct relevance to this type of application.
National Policy and Advice 4.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (2019) sets out policy in paragraph 79a) relating to new essential worker’s dwellings. However it provides no guidance about applications to remove agricultural occupancy restrictions.
4.3 New essential workers will only be permitted where there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside.
4.4 In July 2019 guidance was added to the Planning Practice Guidance suite regarding the evidence that might be considered relevant for considering paragraph 79a) applications for new essential workers’ dwellings. This advises that relevant considerations could include: • evidence of the necessity for a worker to live at or near their place of work; • the degree to which there is confidence of financial viability for the foreseeable future; • whether an additional dwelling is essential for farm succession; • whether the need could be met from existing accommodation.
4.5 There is no specific guidance relating to applications to remove conditions.
Local Plan 4.6 The Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies (October 2019) deals with housing development on unallocated sites within the built-up area of settlements. Development management criteria a) to g) are relevant. Part 2 of policy 11 also permits the change of use of an existing building to a residential use within the built-up area of settlements.
4.7 Explanatory text at paragraph 3.122 defines what is and what is not within the built up areas of a settlement, as follows: “The Local Plan does not identify the settlement boundaries within which Policy 11 will apply. The location of the proposal and its relationship to neighbouring buildings and the physical edge of the settlement will determine whether the application is within the settlement or within the open countryside. For example developments that do not extend beyond the identifiable settlement boundary are considered within the settlement”.
10 KCC3029 SS April 21
4.8 Policy 11 part 3 identifies that development outside the built-up area is governed by Policy 22. Criterion 2 allows developments for agricultural worker’s dwellings or building re-use in the countryside.
4.9 The policy makes no reference to the removal of agricultural conditions.
4.10 In the justification text, the following advisory text is provided (6.18):
“Applications to remove occupancy conditions are not normally approved unless it can clearly be shown that there is no need in the long term for accommodation in association with a countryside use. This would normally be demonstrated by marketing the property at a valuation which reflects the occupancy condition for a suitable length of time”.
11 KCC3029 SS April 21
5 POLICY 11 ASSESSMENT
5.1 Setting aside the agricultural condition, the starting point should be whether or not this is development, or could be development, under Policy 11 part 1 or 2, rather than part 3.
5.2 Policy 11 part 1 allows development within the built up areas of settlements. Paragraph 3.122 defines development that does not extend beyond the identifiable settlement boundary, as within the settlement. As per paragraph 3.124 the conversion of houses to flats and the change of use of non-residential buildings to residential use, and the provisions of HMO’s, falls within the policy.
5.3 It is also noted that “the Council is committed to bringing empty houses and buildings back into use”.
5.4 The dwelling must be considered to be “within the built up area” of Costock, given its juxtaposition to the neighbouring houses, as shown on the Google Earth image below and the photograph that follows. A 2016 aerial image has been used because it has less shadow than the 2019 aerial. Insert 3: The Application Dwelling
Rishleys
Photo 5: The Neighbouring Dwelling Rooftops
12 KCC3029 SS April 21
5.5 As this is within the built up area of the settlement, a planning application for a replacement dwelling, which would be a new dwelling in this location, would be acceptable under policy 11.
5.6 A change of use of the dwelling to flats or an HMO would also acord with policy 11.
5.7 If the dwelling was vacant because there was an agirulctural occupancy condition but no need for an agirucltural worker, then policy 11 would support the removal of the condition because the policy supports the Council’s commitment “to bringing empty houses and buildings back into use”.
5.8 In these circumstances the local planning authority should be supporting the retention of the dwelling without a limitation to agriucltural occupation unless it continues to serve a purpose on the holding. The position of the dwelling within the built up area of the settlement means that it can serve a useful, and very important, role as an unrestricted dwelling. Whether there is a need in the wider area for an agircultural woker, given the physical location of the dwelling releative to Costock, should not be the determinative consideration.
5.9 Accordingly the development complies with policy 11. As such, whilst the policy 22 advice on agircultural conditions is discussed below, it is not relevant.
13 KCC3029 SS April 21
6 POLICY 22 ASSESSMENT
6.1 This section considers: i) whether the original need for the dwelling remains; ii) whether there is otherwise a long-term need for the dwelling on the holding; iii) whether there is a long-term agricultural need for the dwelling in the wider area.
Original Need? 6.2 So far as we can ascertain, there has never been a need for this dwelling to serve agriculture on the holding, such as it is. Therefore we cannot make an assessment of whether or not the original need remains, because there is no evidence of there having been an original need.
Long-Term Need on the Holding? 6.3 For there to be a “need” to live on the farm there would normally be a requirement to operate an enterprise for which an on-site presence is essential. This usually means an animal-based enterprise, but can include horticultural enterprises with climate control.
6.4 It seems unlikely that a livestock business will be acceptable in this location at anything other than small-scale, due to the proximity of neighbours. Housing livestock close to neighbours is likely to result in odours, noise, increased rats etc, and could lead to complaints of nuisance.
6.5 If agricultural buildings were to be sited on the land, for example at the location below, (being the corner of a possible building), there are 59 or 60 houses (approximately) within the 200 metre circle.
14 KCC3029 SS April 21
Insert 4: 200m Circle from Possible Buildings
6.6 Approximately 20 of these fall within 100 metres, as shown below. The closest are only 20-30m away. Insert 5: 100m Circle from Possible Buildings
15 KCC3029 SS April 21
6.7 If the land was all put to grassland and run for cattle or sheep, the potential economics would not generate a living income, as shown below. These are based on Gross Margins and fixed costs for livestock enterprises taken from the John Nix Pocketbook for Farm Management (2021 edition).
6.8 The enterprises selected are: i) breeding sheep, rearing lambs for sale; ii) breeding beef cattle, selling offspring as store cattle at 1 year old; iii) summer finishing store cattle that were overwintered then finished on grass.
6.9 The gross margin figures are shown as £ per hectare. The numbers of animals for each system, based on 8.5 ha of grassland, as follows: • 85 breeding ewes; • 15 suckler cows; • 25-26 store cattle.
6.10 Fixed costs are taken from the Pocketbook for Farm Management for lowland farms under 90 ha. Table 1: Enterprise Profitability Budget Lowland Lowland Finishing suckler- Element breeding ewes suckler cows bred store cattle £/ha £ £/ha £ £/ha £ Gross Margin per forage 541 4,600 127 1,080 859 7,300 ha Fixed costs excl labour 525 4,460 525 4,460 525 4,460 Profit (loss) before labour -- 140 -- (3,380) -- 2,840 Labour (paid and unpaid) 515 4,380 -- 4,380 -- 4,380 Profit (loss) after labour -- (4,240) -- (7,760) -- (1,540)
6.11 From this exercise it can be concluded that: i) keeping of livestock may not be acceptable in this location, given the proximity of neighbouring dwellings; ii) if it was, and buildings were permitted and were erected, only small-scale enterprises would be possible; iii) these scale of enterprises are not significant, and would not give rise to an essential need for a resident worker. Therefore even if the land was farmed in this manner, the dwelling is not needed; iv) however the enterprises do not, and will not, make a positive return for the operator.
16 KCC3029 SS April 21
6.12 In terms of agricultural enterprises there is not, therefore, a long-term need for the dwelling to serve agriculture on the holding.
Long-term Need in the Wider Area 6.13 I assess the need for retention of the dwelling in the wider area in the following order: i) what is being assessed; ii) marketing and evidence of need; iii) Assessing future need; iv) ability of the dwelling to meet any need; v) conclusions.
6.14 What is Being Assessed. The condition limits occupation to a person “employed or last employed in agriculture” or in forestry. Reference to the Town and Country Planning Act within the wording of the condition ensures that occupation is limited to those involved in primary production.
6.15 Neither the NPPF nor the Local Plan offer any planning policy requirements for considering the removal of agricultural conditions. The Local Plan notes that removal will not normally be approved “unless it can be shown that there is no need in the long- term for accommodation in association with a countryside use”. Therefore the guidance is to assess long-term need.
6.16 The Local Plan guidance goes on to refer to marketing of the property. Marketing can be one way of assessing current need. It cannot, of itself, assess long-term need.
6.17 Whilst the local plan refers to need in the long term “in association with a countryside use”, the wording of the condition restricts occupation only to those in agriculture or forestry. Accordingly other countryside uses are not within the terms of the condition.
6.18 Marketing and Evidence of Need. It is not always necessary, or appropriate, to put a property on the open market. There are circumstances where an owner may not want to sell.
6.19 In Appendix KCC2 I attach an appeal for a dwelling with an agricultural condition near Sileby. The Inspector allowed the Appeal: “The most relevant paragraphs for the current dwelling application are: 6: the original farmer’s widow wished to ensure that her family could continue to live in the property when she, herself, was no longer able to;
17 KCC3029 SS April 21
7: the main issue was whether the condition was necessary having regard to the need for rural workers’ accommodation in the locality; 13: the Inspector stated: “Ordinarily, it is helpful to see evidence that the property has been marketed to establish what level of interest, if any, there might be for the continued use of the dwelling for an agricultural worker or those engaged in other forms of rural enterprise. This is the stance taken by the Council. However, there is no requirement in either local or national planning policy that requires this”. 14: it would be somewhat perverse to market a property with no actual intention of selling it; 23: the appellant’s statement includes research in respect of the demand for agricultural dwellings in the area, concluding that demand is static or very low; 21: and there were plentiful dwellings locally available for rent or purchase”.
6.20 At Appendix KCC3 is an appeal from 2017 for a dwelling known as High Plovers. This had not been marketed. The Inspector did not consider that marketing was essential to any assessment of long-term need for a property to continue to serve agriculture in the area.
6.21 Therefore in this case we assess the “need” in the area in the longer-term.
6.22 Assessing Future Need. We have assessed current and future need through a review of applications for essential worker’s dwellings. We then go on to assess whether or not this dwelling could meet that need.
6.23 We have endeavoured to find all planning applications locally. These are listed in the table below, and shown on the plan at Appendix KCC4.
18 KCC3029 SS April 21
Table 2: Table of Planning Applications for Dwellings Year Application Reference No. Decision A/R/W/D 2020 Hills Farm, Colston Bassett NG12 3FL 20/02554/FUL A 2020 Land South of Underhill Farm, Stanford On 20/01579/FUL A Soar LE12 5QL 2020 Smite Lane Farm, Thoroton, NG13 9DU 20/00430/FUL A 2019 Hills Farm, Colston Bassett NG12 3FL 19/02738/FUL R 2019 Land to East of Longridge, Hickling 19/01825/OUT A 2018 New Scotland Farm, Sutton Bonington LE12 18/02875/FUL R 5PH 2018 Smite Lane, Thoroton, NG13 9DU 18/02813/FUL A 2018 Smite Lane, Thoroton, NG13 9DU 18/01313/FUL A 2018 OS Field 5246, Cotgrave 18/01238/FUL A 2018 Land North of Nottingham Road, Cropwell 18/00287/FUL A Bishop 2018 Land North West of Lammas Farm, East 18/00163/FUL A Bridgford 2017 Land at Green Farm Lane, Orston 17/01838/OUT A 2017 OS Field 5246 Woodgate Lane, Cotgrave 17/01338/FUL A 2017 Kingston Brook Farm, Thorpe in the Glebe 17/01038/FUL R NG12 5QX 2016 OS Field 3963 Barnstone Lane, Granby 16/00542/FUL W/D 2016 Malt House Farm, Hickling LE14 3AJ 16/00343/OUT A 2016 Mill Heyes Farm, East Bridgford NG13 8NA 16/02405/FUL A 2016 Poultry Unit Smite Lane, Thoroton 16/00655/FUL A 2013 Lime Kiln Farm, Cropwell Bishop NG12 3BL 13/01599/FUL R 2013 Land on West of Building on Occupation 13/00951/OUT R Lane Willoughby On The Wolds 2013 Mill Heyes Farm, East Bridgford NG13 8NA 13/00068/FUL A 2011 OS Field 3963 Barnstone Lane, Granby 11/01896/FUL R 2011 Kingston Brook Farm, Thorpe in the Glebe 11/01296/FUL W/D NG12 5QX
6.24 This exercise shows that there is a low-level but steady demand for new agricultural workers dwellings across the District. As shown on the map at Appendix KCC4, relatively close to Costock have been only two applications, at Thorpe in the Glebe in 2011, and Stanford on Soar in 2020. The Thorpe in the glebe application was withdrawn and then refused in 2017, indicating no agricultural need. The Stanford in Soar application in 2020 was approved, indicating that the agricultural need has now been met.
6.25 As set out in the budgets, there is no realistic prospect of the 8.5 ha of land making a living for a farmer. There is, it also follows, no realistic prospect of the farm generating a profit that would fund the running costs of a dwelling of this considerable size. The profit before labour is under £3,000 per year.
19 KCC3029 SS April 21
6.26 Therefore the only “need” could come from a person operating, or working on, a farm elsewhere. The marketing evidence, and the analysis of planning applications, shows there is no such need at present.
6.27 If anybody came forward who did work on a local farm, and thus met the terms of the condition (even though they did not necessarily “need” the dwelling, which is the policy test), they would have to be able to afford it. The average farm worker, including about 405 hours of overtime, earns £23,765 - £25,018. See Appendix KCC5. He or she could not afford this large dwelling with land.
6.28 Average farm business incomes for 2020/2021, as just released (see Appendix KCC6) show cereal farms at £36,000, grazing livestock farms at £17,000 and mixed farms at £31,000. Specialist farms, such as dairy and poultry, are expected to perform better but they will need workers living on them, and so this property would be of no use. Average farm incomes would not be able to afford this large dwelling.
6.29 Rushcliffe average salaries are £37,000. See Appendix KCC7.
6.30 In these circumstances a farm worker or farmer would be below average. A farmer of livestock would earn below a farm worker, a farmer of a mixed farm would be slightly above average earnings of farm workers.
6.31 If they needed property in this area, as set out in Appendix KCC8, within 5 miles1 of this farm’s postcode there are: (i) 2 houses under £200,000; (ii) 2 flats between £89,000 and £125,000.
6.32 Therefore there is property available that could be afforded by a person on average or below average earnings, and which would be more suitable than the large dwelling the subject of this application. It is therefore possible to conclude that, if there were farm workers or farmers wanting to live in this area, there are properties potentially available and affordable. They would not, as a consequence, be unable to find somewhere to live. They would not, therefore, “need” dedicated agriculturally-restricted accommodation.
1 Please note whilst the search engine states 3 miles, some are a bit further.
20 KCC3029 SS April 21
7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1 The dwelling was permitted 46 years ago in 1975.
7.2 As the Applicant of that time had retired from farming, there is no clear reason why the dwelling was permitted. He subsequently worked part-time on an arable farm before fully retiring. There has never been a need for the dwelling on the land itself, or in the area, so far as we can ascertain.
7.3 The dwelling is within the built-up area of the settlement of Costock, as defined in the Local Plan policy 11. In such an area development of new houses, subdivision of existing houses, changes of use to residential of buildings, and bringing back into use of empty buildings, all accord with policy.
7.4 In these circumstances, the use of the dwelling for occupation by persons in addition to those in agriculture and forestry, as applied for, accords with planning policy.
7.5 There is therefore no need to go to the third part of policy 11, and then to policy 22 as referenced by policy 11, because the application accords with policy 11 (a).
7.6 However, even if policy 22 is considered, the application should be permitted: i) there is no need on the holding, and there does not appear to have been an original need; ii) there is no long-term need on the holding. No livestock enterprises exist. If any were development, despite the proximity of nearby dwellings, they would not give rise to a need to live on site and would only give rise to a part-time, hobby farming scale, and could not support a farm worker (all enterprises make a loss after accounting for labour costs); iii) and there is no long-term need in the wider area. Locally there has been one application in the last 10 years, which was approved. Agricultural workers could purchase local dwellings if they needed a dwelling, as there are dwellings that are affordable locally.
7.7 In the circumstances the proposals accord with planning policy.
21 KCC3029 SS April 21
Appendix KCC1 Original Outline Planning Consent
22 KCC3029 SS April 21
23 KCC3029 SS April 21
APPENDIX KCC2 Appeal Decision 3143751
24 KCC3029 SS April 21
25 KCC3029 SS April 21
26 KCC3029 SS April 21
27 KCC3029 SS April 21
28 KCC3029 SS April 21
29 KCC3029 SS April 21
30 KCC3029 SS April 21
31 KCC3029 SS April 21
APPENDIX KCC3 Appeal Decision 3175902 – Higher Plovers
32 KCC3029 SS April 21
33 KCC3029 SS April 21
34 KCC3029 SS April 21
35 KCC3029 SS April 21
36 KCC3029 SS April 21
37 KCC3029 SS April 21
Appendix KCC4 Plan of Agricultural Dwelling Applications Locally
38 KCC3029 SS April 21
39 KCC3029 SS April 21
APPENDIX KCC5 Average Farm Worker Salaries
40 KCC3029 SS April 21
AVERAGE FARM WORKERS’ SALARIES
Figures from ABC November 2020
Earnings of Worker: • 52 standard weeks £17,684 • overtime 9 hours/week £6,081 • total earnings without premium £23,765 • employment premium if applicable £1,253 • total earnings including premium £25,018
41 KCC3029 SS April 21
APPENDIX KCC6 Average Farm Business Incomes
42 KCC3029 SS April 21
43 KCC3029 SS April 21
44 KCC3029 SS April 21
45 KCC3029 SS April 21
46 KCC3029 SS April 21
47 KCC3029 SS April 21
48 KCC3029 SS April 21
49 KCC3029 SS April 21
50 KCC3029 SS April 21
51 KCC3029 SS April 21
52 KCC3029 SS April 21
APPENDIX KCC7 Rushcliffe Average Salaries
53 KCC3029 SS April 21
54 KCC3029 SS April 21
APPENDIX KCC8 Properties for Sale Locally Under £200,000
55 KCC3029 SS April 21
56 KCC3029 SS April 21