DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PANEL 16 July 2012

Case No: 1200634S106 (MOD. OR DISCHARGE OF PLANNING OBLIGATION)

Proposal: DISCHARGE OF PLANNING OBLIGATION FROM SECTION 106 AGREEMENT RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL OCCUPANCY OF DWELLING ON PLANNING PERMISSION REFERENCE 901106FUL

Location: WOODFIELD FARM ROAD WARESLEY

Applicant: MR N QUINCE

Grid Ref: 524231 254001

Date of Registration: 25.04.2012

Parish: WARESLEY-CUM-

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The property is a detached bungalow in the open countryside to the south west of Waresley village, on the main route to Gamlingay. The dwelling and egg production unit was granted permission in 1990 under reference 9001106FUL. As part of that application there was no planning condition to restrict occupancy. The restriction was contained in a Section 52 agreement (now known as a S106 agreement) which states that the occupation of the dwelling is restricted to ‘person or persons solely employed in the locality in agriculture as defined in section 336(1) of the 1990 Act (or in forestry) including dependants of such a person residing with him or her or a widow or widower of such a person’ associated with planning permission 9001160FUL.

1.2 This application is seeking to remove the obligation restricting the occupancy of the dwelling and land south of the dwelling (approx 0.4ha) which is used as a garden area.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development - an economic role, a social role and an environmental role - and outlines the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Under the heading of Delivering Sustainable Development, the Framework sets out the Government's planning policies for : building a strong, competitive economy; ensuring the vitality of town centres; supporting a prosperous rural economy; promoting sustainable transport; supporting high quality communications infrastructure; delivering a wide choice of high quality homes; requiring good design; promoting healthy communities; protecting Green Belt land; meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change; conserving and enhancing the natural environment; conserving and enhancing the historic environment; and facilitating the sustainable use of minerals.

For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.

3. PLANNING POLICIES

Further information on the role of planning policies in deciding planning applications can also be found at the following website: http://www.communities.gov.uk then follow links Planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Information and Guidance, Planning Guidance and Advice and then Creating and Better Place to Live

3.1 East of Plan - Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy (May 2008) Policies viewable at http://www.go-east.gov.uk then follow links to Planning, Regional Planning then Related Documents

 SS1: “Achieving Sustainable Development” – the strategy seeks to bring about sustainable development by applying: the guiding principles of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy 2005 and the elements contributing to the creation of sustainable communities described in Sustainable Communities: Homes for All.

3.2 and Structure Plan (2003) Saved policies from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 are relevant and viewable at http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk follow the links to environment, planning, planning policy and Structure Plan 2003.

 None relevant.

3.3 Local Plan (1995) Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95

 H23: “Outside Settlements” – general presumption against housing development outside environmental limits with the exception of specific dwellings required for the efficient management of agriculture, forestry and horticulture. All such dwellings will be subject to appropriate conditions restricting occupancy.

 H25:“Restrictive Occupancy Conditions” - Advises that applications to remove agricultural occupancy conditions will not normally be approved unless it can be shown that the dwelling is surplus to the efficient management of the enterprise and that there is sufficient evidence of the marketing of the property.

 En17: "Development in the Countryside" - development in the countryside is restricted to that which is essential to the effective operation of local agriculture, horticulture, forestry, permitted mineral extraction, outdoor recreation or public utility services.

3.4 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002) Saved policies from the Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002)

 None relevant.

3.5 Policies from the Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2009 are relevant and viewable at http://www.huntsdc.gov.uk click on Environment and Planning then click on Planning then click on Planning Policy and then click on Core Strategy where there is a link to the Adopted Core Strategy.

 CS1: “Sustainable development in Huntingdonshire” – all developments will contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development, having regard to social, environmental and economic issues. All aspects will be considered including design, implementation and function of development. Including reducing water consumption and wastage, minimising impact on water resources and water quality and managing flood risk.

 CS3: “The Settlement Hierarchy” – states that any areas not specifically identified are classed as part of the countryside, where development will be strictly limited to that which has essential need to be located in the countryside.

3.6 Policies from the Development Management DPD : Proposed Submission 2010 are relevant. The Local Planning Authority’s Development Management Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission 2010 (DMDPD) was reported to Cabinet and approved for submission on the 11th February 2010. It was published on 26th March 2010. This was preceded by three separate public consultation exercises: the details of which can be viewed in The Statement of Consultation for the DMDPD on the Council’s website www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk. The document was not submitted in view of the uncertainty regarding the Government’s intentions in respect of the Plan and the impending publication of the National Planning Policy Framework. The DMDPD contains the Council’s most up to date policies and it is considered that its policies are consistent with the NPPF. It is therefore considered that its policies should be accorded significant weight.

 E2: “Built-up Areas” – development will be limited to within the built-up areas of the settlements identified in Core Strategy policy C3, in order to protect the surrounding countryside and to promote wider sustainability objectives.

 P7: “Development in the Countryside” – development in the countryside is restricted to those listed within the given criteria.

a. essential operational development for agriculture, horticulture or forestry, outdoor recreation, equine-related activities, allocated mineral extraction or waste management facilities, infrastructure provision and national defence; b. development required for new or existing outdoor leisure and recreation where a countryside location is justified; c. renewable energy generation schemes; d. conservation or enhancement of specific features or sites of heritage or biodiversity value; e. the alteration, replacement, extension or change of use of existing buildings in accordance with other policies of the LDF; f. the erection or extension of outbuildings ancillary or incidental to existing dwellings; g. sites allocated for particular purposes in other Development Plan Documents.

 H5: “Homes in the Countryside” - proposals for the relaxation of an occupancy condition will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the dwelling is no longer required by its associated enterprise, those working, or last working in the locality in agriculture, forestry, horticulture or a rural enterprise; and a surviving partner of such a person or any resident dependants. Evidence demonstrating steps taken to market the dwelling for a continuous period of 12 months at a value reflecting the occupancy condition will be required.

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 9001106FUL - Dwelling and egg production unit - granted permission

4.2 0703937S73 – Removal of agricultural occupancy restriction on planning permission 9001106FUL and schedule attached to S106 agreement – Permission refused

4.3 0800473S73 - Removal of agricultural occupancy restriction on planning permission 9001106FUL and schedule attached to S106 agreement – Permission refused

4.4 1000582S106, - Discharge of planning obligation – permission refused and upheld on appeal.

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Waresley PC – recommend Refusal (COPY ATTACHED)

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 1 letter of objection:

The dwelling was allowed after the erection of chicken sheds on the land, which has ceased to operate. The Objector feels it is incumbent upon the LPA to check viability as to allow the removal of the restriction would set a precedent in the area and unfair to those in open market housing.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 On the 4th June 2010 the LPA refused an application for the removal of the occupancy restriction. This was upheld on appeal on the 15th February 2011(See Green Papers). However, the Planning Inspector’s report does provide very useful comments to inform the assessment of this application.

7.2 The Inspector clearly indicated that he agreed with the evidence for the appellant that the lack of viability of the egg production was mainly because the constraints of the site, including its small size and proximity to residential property, precluded the business from responding to changes in organisation and scale within the industry. The key issue for consideration is the valuation placed on the land and buildings bearing in mind the occupancy restriction and if this valuation was competitive enough to attract any prospective purchasers who comply with the restriction.

7.3 The Inspector had no objection to the marketing campaign and for the purposes of this application, the agent has demonstrated that the holding has been marketed from April 2011 to February 2012 across a range of sites and/or papers including the Acorus home page, rightmove.co.uk and Farmers Weekly newspaper. Since the determination of that appeal, the NPPF now replaces PPS7. Unlike PPS7, the NPPF does not address the removal of agricultural related occupancy restrictions and relies on the Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Documents to provide guidance on the removal of occupancy restrictions. However, Policy H5 of the DMDPD: Proposed Submission does require evidence of steps taken to market the dwelling for a continuous period of 12 months at a value to reflect the occupancy condition.

7.4 In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the appeal decision the Inspector agreed that the valuation at that time (£595,000.00) was too high. As with the previous application, as part of this application, Cheffins have provided the Council with independent advice on the valuation of the property. Having reviewed the particulars and taking into consideration market changes since the determination of the appeal, Cheffins’ conclusion is that the market value of the property is £465,000 and the asking price should be in the range of £475,000.00 to £500,000.00. Between April 2011 and November 2011, the asking price was £525,000.00. In November 2011, the asking price of the property dropped to £517,000.00. The difference is £17k between the lower price Acorus have marketed the property and the higher end of the Cheffins valuation, which represents 3.4% of the Cheffin’s valuation. Taking into consideration that the Inspector considered the original valuation provided by Cheffins for the Council, and the basis of its current valuation, was ‘on the low side’ (para 9), it is not considered that a refusal of this proposal based on a 3.4% difference in asking price would be sustainable.

7.5 Furthermore, the Inspector considered it too onerous to require separate sales of the dwelling and the land and buildings. He also considered it unrealistic for the seller to explore alternative uses.

Conclusion:

7.6 Taking the Planning Inspectors comments on board and considering the revised submission against those comments and changes to national planning policy, it is considered that the asking price is appropriate and would not now be a sustainable reason for refusal. In light of National Guidance, Development Plan Policies and other considerations, consent should be given for the discharge of the occupancy restrictions for this bungalow.

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.

8. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE That the obligation be discharged.

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Clara Kerr Development Management Officer 01480 388434

Development Management Panel Application Ref: 1200634S106 Location: Waresley-cum-Tetworth

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. HDC 100022322

Wildm ere Plantation 35.8m

34.4m

0

4

0

1

B

Lily Hill As h P lantation 56.4m Lily Hill

T T r r a a c c k k

37.0m

Lily Hill P lantation

Track

n i

a r

D

35.4m

n i

a r

D

38.8m

T r a c k

ck ra The S pinney T 56.1m #

Sluic e

0

4

0

1

B

Pond Track

40.3m

Lilly H il Hous e

Beech Tetworth Barn

Manor Farm

Pond

Pond

36.6m FB

Hom e Farm Tennis c our t Fairfield 43.0m

4

57.3m 3 1

Little MA NO Silv an R FA RM R 52.7m Lodge Farthingloe OA D Woodstoc k Fiv e Farthings

1 46.3m The V ine H ouse Lodge

E E S The N Red Hous e A O The M ullings Studio Is s ues L L T C A O k T c R 6 S a G 6 0 r E 4 T W Repton Hous e 0 1

B The

5 GP Square 4 n i Pond a 50.5m r D Pum p 1 Wares ley G range

3 1

e e g ag tt d o Pond 2 o L New C ly T Holt h Hous e l r t o a r Holly bank 2 c H k o e N s u 1 o H Mic k le H il d r The B ank The F or ge lfo Plantation e W Pond 53.0m Kilm orey

Tennis Court

Old Sc hool T ra ck Hall

Wares ley W a re s Wares ley le 37.2m y Park The O rangery C o t ta g Dunc ombe e Arm s

Wares ley Park (PH) MS War TCB Mem l B 1 1 0 GP 4 0 ck Pp a m r .5 T 8 2 7 5 1 St Jam es ' s 0 1 4 1 Churc h 0 1 6 Cric ket G round Wares ley Park B 14 Garden C entr e 7

Glebe Hous e T 19 ra ck 12 2 The O ld Vic arage 8 1 1 Vic ara ge E B l a S r n u 37.8m b The P ark S Morr el ta Hous e 17 Dairy Cottage Pavilion Pem broke C ottage Cros s The B ungalow on s ite of Sluic e Vicarage St Jam es ' s C hurc h V Farm IC A R A G E FB T 59.4m R Cem etery r a O c A k D

Low Farm Moatfield 24 Hous e

Sinks

) Sluic e Pond k Fis h Pond

c

a r Moat

T

( E N A

L Pond 30 T A

O T ra R ck G

in ra D

Wares ley Park

D r a i n

The A venue

P a t ) h ( m u u m ( ) h t a

D P

r

a

i

n

D OA Y R GA IN ML GA

Groat Lane Pond 62.4m

k c Plantation a r T

Pond

Keepers Lodge

FB Pond P a 1 Wares ley Park th

(u Cottages m ) in Dra

60.3m

The G atehouse

62.2m 40 10 B Woodfield

T ra Park side ck

G R T O ra A ck T

Windy R idge Drain 61.8m k Silo Trac Gam lingay

P a t h

( u m

)

61.8m

D e f

South Lodge

T ra ck

D ra in

D A O R

H R

Y A G N I L M A G

B T T D m H ra e 2 R c 2 k f 1. 2m 1.2

H C o R C

m o n 2 s 2 t . , 1 C P

&

E D

B d y

Pa th (um Tk H ) 1.22m

f Pond e D

T ra ck

k ac Tr n T Drai ra y c d k B D E & P C t, s n o C Pond o C

18

62.2m

P a th

(u m ) Viney ard

Gam lingay Wood

T r a c k

64.5m

62.8m Solitaire

AD RO Silo E OV R D T ra c Tank k

P a t h

( u m )

Y E L S E

R A Legend W

T r a c k

Th60e.0m Site

ck ra Conservation Area T P a th

(u m ) ¯

Scale: 1:10000

GREEN PAPERS FOLLOW

Appeal Decision Hearing held and Site visit made on 13 January 2011 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 15 February 2011

Appeal Ref: APP/H0520/Q/10/2131259 Woodfield Farm, Gamlingay Road, Waresley, Sandy SG19 3DB • The appeal is made under Section 106B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to discharge a planning obligation. • The appeal is made by Mr N Quince against the decision of Huntingdonshire District Council. • The development to which the planning obligation relates is an ‘Egg production unit and bungalow’. • The planning obligation, dated 28 October 1991, was made between Huntingdon District Council and Mr N Quince. • The application, Ref. 1000582S106, dated 15 April 2010, was refused by notice dated 4 June 2010. • The application sought to have the planning obligation discharged.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Main Issue

2. The Council considers that the removal of the obligation, which forms the legal tie between the occupancy of the bungalow at Woodfield Farm and a person or persons employed in the locality in agriculture or forestry, is not justified and would be contrary to Policies P8 and H25 of the Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010 which in turn reflect national guidance for rural tied dwellings in PPS7: ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’.

3. The main issue in this appeal is whether the planning obligation entered into in 1991 continues to serve a useful purpose.

Reasons

Background

4. With an overall area of about 4.4ha including a domestic garden of 0.4ha Woodfield Farm is a small, or at most modestly sized agricultural holding. It was purchased by the appellant in 1988 and used for market gardening which proved to be unprofitable. The dwelling formed part of a planning permission for a free range egg production unit granted planning permission in November 1991 under reference 9001106FUL and which was fully implemented in 1994. In addition to the planning obligation which restricted occupancy of the dwelling, the permission included four conditions regulating activity on the site in order to protect the living conditions for the occupiers of ‘Parkside’, a nearby residential property.

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk Appeal Decision APP/H0520/Q/10/2131259

5. In the event, egg production at Woodfield Farm eventually ceased to be viable and although still operating the holding was put on the market in autumn of 2006. I am satisfied with the evidence for the appellant that this lack of viability was mainly because the constraints of the site, including its small size and proximity to residential property, precluded the business from responding to changes in organisation and scale within the industry. Production ceased in October 2007 and Woodfield Farm remained unsold until it was withdrawn when the appeal application was submitted in April 2010.

6. As the property has been marketed unsuccessfully, the decision on this appeal effectively rests on whether the sales campaign was adequate and the valuation appropriate, bearing in mind the occupancy restriction. Under the Council’s policies and the guidance in PPS7, a sale to either a person intending to re-commence agricultural or similar activity on the holding or to someone working in the industry within the local area would be acceptable.

Appraisal: Marketing and Valuation

7. In respect of marketing, the Council’s concerns relate less to technical aspects such as the spread of advertising, the appropriateness of the outlets and the length of the campaign and rather more to an alleged lack of initiative and flexibility in the efforts to achieve a sale. As regards valuation the asking price of £595,000, set when Woodfield Farm was first advertised for sale in 2006 and maintained until its withdrawal in 2010, is considered to be prohibitively high and a deterrent to would be purchasers who would qualify under the obligation.

8. The successful sale of a property is normally dependent on a combination of both effective marketing and a price perceived by would be purchasers as representing good value for what is on offer, and this applies equally to tied properties. I have given careful consideration to the various valuations carried out on behalf of the Council and the appellant. These vary widely between the two parties and in large measure this was attributable to the figure of £275,000 in the appellant’s valuations placed on the land and buildings outside the area of the tied bungalow and its garden.

9. Although I consider the figure placed by the Council’s appointed valuers on the general purpose building to be on the low side, I agree with the Council’s advisers that the overall figure for the land and buildings was too high in the context of a tied sale of the accompanying dwelling. It might well have been a realistic value for a leisure / recreational use in the rising market of 2006 / 2007, especially as the accompanying bungalow is of a good size and quality and the landscape of the holding and its surroundings is attractive in appearance. This would appear to be supported by the figures of £750,000 and £760,000 given by separate independent valuers for the unencumbered whole holding in November 2007. However it would be difficult for a purchaser envisaging using the land for agricultural or similarly qualifying purposes to expect a return on an investment of that amount, especially given the non viability of the failed enterprise. Moreover potential purchasers working elsewhere in the locality and primarily seeking only the bungalow as an agricultural residence would have even less inclination or ability to pay the £275,000 as part of the price for the whole holding.

10. The fact that Woodfield Farm was marketed for almost four years, almost four times longer than the minimum period normally required by Local Planning Authorities for tied properties, and was not the subject of any offers anywhere near the asking price seems to me to be the market itself demonstrating that

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 2 Appeal Decision APP/H0520/Q/10/2131259

the holding as a whole was in fact overvalued having regard to the tie in place. This notwithstanding, I do not consider the value to have been contrived in order to preclude a sale but rather that it did not fully recognise that in addition to the formal encumbrance of the dwelling, the adjoining land and buildings are in fact ‘informally encumbered’ by their association with it as part of the sale.

11. That said, in terms of the efforts to achieve a sale, on the reasonable assumption that the applicant needs the sale proceeds of all his property to move on, I consider it too onerous to require separate sales of the dwelling and the land and buildings as suggested by the Council. The caution that any buyer of the bungalow alone would be bound to exercise in terms of what might happen on the surrounding land would almost certainly preclude an easy disposal and / or depress the value. And similarly the likely constraints imposed by the presence of the bungalow on the activities carried out in respect of the land and buildings would be a significant deterrent to any purchaser of the latter who would not also occupy that dwelling (in this context the conditions referred to in paragraph 4 above are an indication of the potential for difficulties, albeit that the use of land as a separate entity for agriculture might permit more flexibility).

12. I am also supportive of the appellant’s position in terms of firstly the exploration of alternative appropriate uses for the holding as a viable unit with a functional need for the dwelling and secondly the seeking of permission for the formal alteration of the restrictive wording in the obligation to bring it more into line with the advice in Circular 11/95 and PPS7, thereby increasing the scope of potential purchasers. Such initiatives would normally be carried out by a potential buyer and having regard to the necessary time, effort and money involved and the lower than open market value associated with the sale of a tied property I consider it unrealistic to expect the seller (the then applicant) to adopt this role with a firm resolve unless there is clear advice by the Council that this is necessary, either in published SPG or directly in negotiations.

13. In this case the advice given by the Council would appear to have been somewhat limited in its scope. I also consider that in the absence of planning applications the Council might find it difficult to provide reliable information to prospective purchasers on alternative uses or relaxation in the occupancy restrictions, which are crucial to any decision to buy a holding that already has doubtful viability because of the constraints of size and position and failure of the previous enterprise.

14. However whilst these points might be helpful to the appellant’s case, in the final analysis it is a more competitive valuation that deserves greater weight as this would be likely not only to increase market interest but also encourage a more pro-active approach from would be purchasers. In the event there may not prove to be a buyer for the holding, which would suggest the planning obligation restricting occupancy has outlived its usefulness, but on the evidence before me this has not been established.

Conclusion

15. This is a complex case and Woodfield Farm is not a property that can be readily compared with others, which increases the difficulty in resolving the issues in this appeal. However at the Hearing the Council observed, correctly in my view, that the removal of the planning obligation, which is there to ensure the

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 3 Appeal Decision APP/H0520/Q/10/2131259

protection of the countryside in accordance with LDF Policies P8 and H25 and national guidance in PPS7, should be ‘the last resort’.

16. Whilst I have sympathy with the appellant’s predicament, at least some doubts as to the viability of the holding because of its small size and sensitive location, and do not support all the Council’s reservations on marketing, I also consider that it has still to be satisfactorily demonstrated that the planning obligation entered into in 1991 no longer serves a useful purpose.

17. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Martin Andrews

Inspector

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 4 Appeal Decision APP/H0520/Q/10/2131259

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr B Barrow BSc(Hons) MRICS Agent, Acorus Rural Property Services Ltd Mr N Quince Appellant Mrs D Quince “

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Ms C Kerr Development Management Officer, Huntingdonshire District Council Mr N Swaby BA MA DipTP Development Management Team Leader MRTPI

DOCUMENT SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING

1 Council’s tabulation of property value based on advice by Cheffins Valuers

PLAN Drawing No. OA/07/GC/Woodfield: Location Plan with land edged red A and blue denoting application site and appellant’s ownership respectively

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 5