PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Jeremy Guise Ward: Bere Ferrers

Ward Members: Cllrs M Benson: R Musgrave

Application No: 01065/2014

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Ward and Chowen Mr T Young Mr J Spiers Clamoak Farm Tavistock Livestock Centre Bere Alston Whitchurch Road Yelverton Tavistock Devon Devon PL19 8AA PL20 7BU

Site Address: Clamoak Farm, Bere Alston, Yelverton, Devon, PL20 7BU

© Crown copyright Scale 1:1250 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made and database rights 2014 Ordnance Survey 100023302

Development: Temporary siting of caravan for an agricultural worker.

13

Reason item is being put before Committee Cllr M Benson (Ward Member, Bere Ferrers) Bere Ferrers Parish Council’s Planning Committee objected to application number 01065/2014 for the temporary siting of a caravan for an agricultural worker at Clamoak Farm, Bere Alston PL20 7BU. Their reason for objection is the location within the area, as it is in their opinion in a prominent position within the conservation area of Weir Quay and would be better located closer to nearby barns and I support that view. Local residents have also raised questions over the sale of a tied cottage that was sold recently within the same location and why another tied property is now required. I would like this application to go before the P&L committee.

Recommendation: Conditional planning permission be GRANTED

Conditions/Reasons for refusal (list not in full) 1. Time limit 2. Approved plan numbers 3. Materials 4. Details of landscaping 5. Implementation of landscaping

Key issues for consideration: - The design and appearance of the proposed extensions, including its impact upon the street scene - The impact of the proposed dwelling upon the amenities of neighbouring residential property - The adequacy of access arrangements and impact upon the highway network

The site is located in open countryside where planning permission is not normally granted for new dwellings. Some policy provision exists for exceptions to this general presumption, where is can be demonstrated that strict set of criteria are met. These are set out in H31 and H32.

The agricultural justification for the mobile home has been assessed by the council’s agricultural advisor and found to be no essential need for a new agricultural dwelling in this location. As the provisions in policies H31 and H32 are to provide for exceptions to the prevailing policy regime, which is against development in open countryside, is not considered that conditions can be used to overcome a fundamental policy conflict.

The proposed mobile unit, by reason of its use, location and lack of essential need, constitutes an unjustified new residential unit in the open countryside and as such is contrary to Development Plan Policies NE10, H31, H32 of the West Devon Borough Council Local Plan Review SP1, SP5 of the adopted core strategy and paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

Site Description: Entrance to the site is access to an agricultural filed approximately 40m to the west of where permission for the caravan is being sought. The access is on a slight bend in the road which is narrow at this point.

The site is screened behind a Devon bank and not visible from the road. But it does occupy an elevated position in relation to the river Tamar and will be visible from the opposite bank in Cornwall and boats using the river.

14

The Proposal: Planning permission is sought for a mobile home for an agricultural worker for a temporary period of 3 years. Beyond a square shaped plot with a rectangular shaped indication of a position for ‘mobile home’ the application does not provide details of appearance The proposed dwelling is shown with a new access onto the farm track, to the north of the existing track for the recently completed farm building, which is located immediately to the north east.

The applicant has submitted n ‘Agricultural Appraisal’ with the application. Section 10 covers ‘The Justification for a temporary Dwelling’, it states:- ‘The Standard Labour Requirement as calculated in Appendix B demonstrates that the business is viable and requires a full time person living on the site.

The business has been established for at least five years and during which time has developed in such a way that it is now capable of providing a reasonable living for Mr Hillson The planning application is for a temporary dwelling ; temporary, because Mr. Hill son has ambitions to climb up the farming ladder, and when the time is right will seek an agricultural tenancy on a much larger unit with a house.

The farm did have a tied agricultural workers dwelling, but this was retained by the previous owner, who was able to have the tie lifted and subsequently sold the property for a price way above that which one could justify paying for a farm workers cottage .

The proposed dwelling will be sited near the original farm workers cottage, as both water and an electrical supply area to hand. In order to reduce any visual impact , bearing in mind the scenic importance of the area, the dwelling will be placed behind a hedge and will be further concealed by a new planting of low trees and shrubs.’

In order to better assess the proposal against Policy H31 (iii) and (iv) the case officer asked applicants to provide a detailed rationale for the choice of site. Ward & Chowen, the applicant’s agent, set out in an undated letter (received early November) their response.

They point out that the application is for a temporary dwelling not a caravan and emphasises that it is not for a permanent. They go one to state that the site has been chosen because there is an existing gateway entrance close by and there would be no issues in providing mains electricity and water services, with no external poles. The letter points out that if the temporary dwelling was located closer to farm building there would be an additional £25,000 cost from poles over 400m to connect electricity, visual intrusion and unknown costs connecting to mains water supply.

Consultations:

County Highways Authority: - No objection to the proposed development. The outcome of this proposal will depend on whether or not the mobile home can be justified through the agricultural appraisal process.

15

Bere Ferrers Parish Council: – Object – on the grounds of the location, there are more suitable locations within the area. It was proposed that the siting should be closer to buildings already on the site. Also there should be an Agricultural tie to Mr Hilson and that tie should expire when Mr Hilson vacates the property and the said property removed. A vote was taken 4 for and 2 abstentions.

Tamar Valley AONB: - As per our telephone conversation of a couple of weeks ago (03/10/14) I can confirm the following as being the Tamar Valley AONB (TVAONB) comments in response to this planning application. 1. It is acknowledged that the provisions of paragraph 55. of the NPPF make allowance for justified dwellings within the open countryside where they are justified. I understand that you are having the application assessed by the WDBC appointed agricultural assessor Derek Roberts. It will be the result of that assessment and your consideration of the material planning matters that will determine whether the applicant has justified the need for a dwelling in this location and whether this should be subject to a temporary period of consent or not. 2. Should the LPA be in any doubt as to the justifications for the dwelling or that it could be accommodated in another way then it would ultimately be refused on principle as well as any additional matters such as visual impact, location, design, etc. 3. Subject to the application being deemed to provide such justification then the TVAONB would suggest that the location of the dwelling is prominent when viewed from the wider landscape, inclusive of the well-used river corridor and Cornwall. Given the above, it is suggested that an alternate siting for a modest dwelling should be sought in preference to this one. I do not believe that the current siting could have the visual impacts of a dwelling mitigated by landscaping, as it would likely still be prominent in the autumn/ winter months and the substantive nature of such landscaping may in itself be an alien feature within the field pattern. As I mentioned in my previous conversation with you (03/10/14) I was uncertain as to whether it might be within the applicant's control to site the proposed dwelling closer to the agricultural buildings situated to the east of the site that sit adjacent to the line of pylons running north-south. It is possible that a dwelling in closer proximity to these existing buildings would then be less visually prominent and possibly better located in functional terms, if the applicant uses the buildings. The TVAONB is happy to review any alternative siting or landscaping as may be proposed and offer further comments/advice as necessary.

Agricultural Appraiser: - The Council’s agricultural appraiser was required to assess commercially sensitive information, provided by the applicant and her agricultural advisor against the provisions of adopted policies. Inevitably his report includes detailed information that has been provided on a confidential basis, and can not be reproduced in a public report to Planning & Licensing Committee. What follows, in the box is a redacted version of the Council’s agricultural appraiser’s report. A full version has been made available to Planning & Licensing Committee members on a confidential basis.

16

I visited Clamoak Farm on 2nd October 2014. I met the applicant and his tenant of Clamoak Farm, Mr George Hillson, who is Mr Young’s grandson.

The application includes an Agricultural Appraisal prepared on the applicant’s behalf by Mr Jack Spiers of Ward and Chowen, Tavistock. I would refer you to Mr Spiers’ appraisal, both as an introduction to my own appraisal of the application and to avoid me having to make unnecessary repetition of much of the detail behind the basic facts of the case. I will, however, begin with the following summary of the facts.

Clamoak Farm – the agricultural circumstances

 Clamoak Farm extends to 34 hectares (85 acres) or thereabouts. Mr Young purchased the farm in 1975, having previously held a tenancy of the farm.

 Mr Young has now retired from farming. A few years ago, he let approximately 12 ha (30 ac) of the farm to Mr Hillson. Then, in 2009 he granted a five year Farm Business Tenancy of the whole farm, including the farm buildings, to Mr Hillson. Although the tenancy is now in its final year, Mr Young says that he will grant another tenancy to Mr Hillson for possibly as long as ten years, if Mr Hillson hasn’t been able to find a farm of his own.

 In addition to Clamoak Farm, Mr Hillson also has a tenancy on some 32 ha (80 ac) of land and farm buildings at South Hooe Farm, Bere Alston. South Hooe is approximately two miles from Clamoak. Mr Hillson is therefore currently farming some 67 ha (165 ac). He also buys grass keep from time to time.

 The land which Mr Hillson rents at South Hooe is only part of this farm. He does, in fact, have a joint tenancy of the whole farm (which extends to some 67 ha (165 ac) with his brother. They have agreed, however, to split the land, so that they each farm separate parts of it. An important point is that they have agreed that George Hillson can receive the annual Single Farm Payment for the whole of South Hooe Farm.

 The majority of the land which Mr Hillson farms is pasture, together with, in most years, a few acres of kale and turnips for sheep feed.

 Mr Hillson has two farming enterprises, beef and sheep.

 The beef enterprise is not a continuous one. It involves the occasional purchase of store cattle which Mr Hillson rears to a finished slaughter weight. In 2013 he fattened 20 cattle. The enterprise depends on having sufficient growth of grass on which to graze the cattle. Because of the dry summer and autumn this year there hasn’t been sufficient grass, so no cattle have yet been bought in 2014.

 The sheep enterprise is based on a flock of around 450 breeding ewes which, on average, produce around 600 lambs each year, which are sold as fat lambs. In addition, Mr Hillson buys in store lambs for fattening. In 2013 he bought 250 store lambs. He hasn’t so far bought any in 2014, again because of the shortage of grass.

 There is a range of farm buildings at Clamoak, which are suitable and adequate for Mr Hillson’s farming activities and are especially adapted for the handling and lambing of the sheep. The buildings at South Hooe comprise a cattle yard, feed area and a grain store.

17

 There is an existing dwelling at Clamoak Farm. It is occupied by Mr and Mrs Young, who are Mr Hillson’s grandparents. Similarly at South Hooe Farm, where the existing farmhouse is also occupied by a retired farmer, who owns that farm.

 Mr Hillson lives with his parents at Higher Gawton Farm, Bere Alston. This is approximately four and a half miles from Clamoak Farm.

 Mr Hillson is the only worker on his land, involving all the work with the livestock, including shearing, and all the fieldwork. The work equates to a fulltime unit of labour.

The application and the reasons for it

This is an application for a temporary dwelling at Clamoak Farm, for Mr Hillson to live in, so that he can be readily available at most times on the farm to provide proper management and welfare of his livestock, and particularly the substantial number of breeding ewes and lambs.

To quote from Section 7 of Mr Spiers’ agricultural appraisal: “For the past six years, Mr Hillson has been seeking accommodation close to his farming business without success. His ambition is to continue building his farming enterprise to a point where there is sufficient capital within the business allowing him to take on a tenancy of a much larger farming unit with a house. The inclusion of a temporary mobile home on a site at Clamoak Farm will allow Mr Hillson to be located close to his lambing pens and stock, and further, by living on-site will give added security over both stock and equipment; in the recent past he has had equipment stolen, although reported to the police, none was recovered”.

An assessment of the application against the relevant criteria of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and West Devon Borough Council Policies H31 and H32

Paragraph 55 of the NPPF advises that:

“Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as (for example) the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside.”

The Framework does not give any specific guidance on how any “special circumstances” and “essential need” should be assessed. It is therefore generally accepted, including by your Authority, that the relevant criteria which should be applied are those which were in Annex A of PPS7, even though PPS7 was revoked by the introduction of the NPPF, in March 2012. Those criteria still provide an appropriate way of assessing planning applications for new agricultural workers dwellings. They do, in any case, still form the basis of your Authority’s policies H31, H32, H33 and H34, and the preamble to those policies in paragraph 4.102 in the WDBC Local Plan, under the heading ‘Residential Development in the Countryside’.

As regards applications for temporary agricultural workers’ dwellings, paragraph 12 of Annex A advised that:

“If a new dwelling is essential to support a new farming activity, whether on a newly- created agricultural unit or an established one, it should normally, for the first three years, be provided by a caravan, a wooden structure which can easily be dismantled, or other temporary accommodation. It should satisfy the following criteria:

18

(i) “Clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise concerned;

Although Mr Hillson’s farming activities are not “new” (this being the operative word in the above quoted introduction to paragraph 12 of Annex A), this is, in my opinion, a special case in which Mr Hillson has so far been obliged to manage his farming activities at Clamoak Farm from the 4 ½ mile distance of his present home at Higher Gawton Farm. Neither he nor the applicant are anticipating applying for a permanent dwelling at the end of a temporary dwelling consent. They regard the temporary dwelling as a short-term expedient. It would give Mr Hillson the opportunity to live at Clamoak Farm for three years (the usual maximum period for which temporary workers’ dwellings are permitted) so that he can provide proper management and welfare of his livestock and to develop the farm enterprises to a point when he would be in a better position to apply for a tenancy of a larger farm which would include a dwelling.

In my opinion, Mr Hillson has a firm intention and ability to develop his enterprises.

(ii) “Functional need;

This was further explained in Paragraph 4 of Annex A, where it advised that:

“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 (for example) if animals require essential care at short notice.”

Mr Hillson does need to be readily available at most times at Clamoak Farm, especially in order to provide proper management and welfare of his substantial sheep enterprise, including, as it does, around 450 breeding ewes, together with not only their own lambs but also bought-in lambs for fattening. iii) “clear evidence that the proposed enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis;

I have been given Mr Hillson’s farm Income and Expenditure Accounts for each of the four trading years up to 5th April 2013. They show an improving financial situation, year on year, and from which I am able to say that Mr Hillson’s future farming activities have every prospect of being financially sound.

(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;

Firstly, accommodation in the existing dwelling at Clamoak Farm is not available to Mr Hillson. It is not included in his tenancy of the farm.

Secondly, I consider that Mr Hillson’s present home, with his parents at Higher Gawton Farm, is too far away from Clamoak Farm for him to be readily available at most times, day and night, at Clamoak Farm.

Thirdly, even any available properties to buy or rent in Bere Alston would be three miles or so from the farm, which would be a distance too far, in my opinion.

It is therefore my opinion that there is unlikely to be any suitable and available accommodation for Mr Hillson close to Clamoak Farm, as an alternative to the proposed on-farm temporary dwelling.

19

(v) “other normal planning requirements; e.g. on siting and access are satisfied”.

See my comments, below, on the question of the proposed site for the temporary dwelling.

Turning to WDBC policy H31, it says that: “Residential development, outside the defined limits of settlements, and where policy H29 does not apply, will not be permitted unless all the following criteria are met:

(i) There is written independent evidence of a genuine and sustained need for the dwelling, that need being based upon an essential agricultural, forestry or horticultural requirement for a fulltime worker to be resident on the holding;”

You have both Mr Spiers’ and my appraisals of the planning application.

(ii) “The local planning authority has no reason to believe that the need for an additional dwelling has arisen primarily due to the recent sub-division of the holding and/or the recent disposal of a dwelling from the holding;”

The proposed temporary agricultural worker’s dwelling has not arisen from any recent sub-division of Clamoak Farm.

At this point, I would add the following notes regarding the property which is immediately to the northwest of the application site for the temporary dwelling.

The property is known as Marshmoor. It was in existence for at least some of the time between 1965 and 1975 when Mr Young was a tenant of Clamoak. I assume that it must have been granted permission as a second dwelling on the farm, since it had an agricultural occupancy condition.

When Mr Young bought Clamoak Farm in 1975, presumably as a sitting tenant, he says that the landlord would not sell Marshmoor to him. I believe that a subsequent owner of the cottage complied with the occupancy condition because she was the wife of a former farmer.

Mr Young informs me that some three or four years ago, the then owner of Marshmoor successfully applied to have the occupancy condition lifted. Mr Young disagreed with this decision, although I don’t know if he formally objected.

Having got the occupancy condition removed, Mr Young says that the owners then sold Marshmoor for the considerable sum of £450,000. As he rightly says, such a price is beyond the means of a young farmer; not that Marshmoor is currently for sale anyway.

I know that you have also asked Mr Spiers for evidence of the history of Marshmoor.

(iii) “There is no building on the holding suitable for conversion to a dwelling;”

I believe that there is no building at Clamoak Farm which is suitable for conversion to a dwelling, and bearing in mind that this is only an application for a temporary dwelling, not a permanent one.

(iv) “The dwelling is situated close to existing agricultural buildings unless it can be clearly demonstrated that a more isolated location is essential for the operational of the holding;”

20

I have seen the objections that have been raised concerning the proposed site of the mobile home. Although it is not in my remit to consider landscape and visual impact issues, I can say that, from an agricultural point of view, if there is a need for any new on-farm dwelling, then it is usually expected that the dwelling should be as close as possible to where that need mainly arises, which is invariably at the farm buildings.

(v) “The building is in keeping with the character of the area in terms of scale, design and materials.”

The dwelling will be a temporary one, in the form of a caravan or mobile home.

Turning to policy H32, it says that:

“Where the creation of a dwelling is primarily dependent on the creation of a new, or the major expansion of an existing agricultural, horticultural or forestry enterprise, any permission will be phased to ensure that the new enterprise is in operation prior to the erection of a permanent dwelling. Where the viability of a new enterprise needs time to become established, permission will only be granted for temporary accommodation for a maximum period of three years”.

This policy is based on PPS7 Annex A paragraph 12, which I have referred to and assessed above.

Mr Hillson’s farming activities do not, strictly speaking, meet the reasons why temporary agricultural workers’ dwellings are permitted, namely because of a new farming enterprise, or the major expansion of an existing one. The applicant is not anticipating applying to replace the temporary dwelling with a permanent one in three years’ time. The temporary dwelling would be a short-term expedient, to give Mr Hillson the opportunity to live on the farm for a period of three years, from which he will be best able to further develop and establish his farming enterprise, and be in a position to apply for a tenancy of another, larger, farm which would have the benefit of a dwelling.

Concluding comments

This is an application for a temporary agricultural workers dwelling for a period of three years at Clamoak Farm, Bere Alston. The application has been made by the owner of the farm, Mr Young. The temporary dwelling would be for the occupation of his tenant, Mr George Hillson.

In this appraisal I have described Mr Hillson’s farming activities and his future farming ambitions. Having assessed the circumstances against the relevant criteria of the National Planning Policy Framework and WDBC policies H31 and H32 it is my opinion that:

 Mr Hillson has an established farming enterprise which, with the benefit of on-farm accommodation he would be able to further establish and develop;

 Mr Hillson does need to be readily available at most times, day and night, at Clamoak Farm in order to provide proper management and welfare of his livestock, particularly his substantial number of breeding ewes and lambs;

 Mr Hillson’s farming activities are financially sound and have a clear prospect of remaining so;

 the functional need for Mr Hillson to be readily available both day and night at Clamoak 21

Farm cannot be fulfilled by the accommodation in the existing farmhouse (it is not part of his farm tenancy and accommodation in the farmhouse is not available to him), or by any other existing accommodation in the area. The 4 ½ mile distance to Mr Hillson’s present home, with his parents at Higher Gawton Farm, Bere Alston is too far for him to be readily available at most times at Clamoak Farm. Similarly, as regards any accommodation in Bere Alston which might otherwise be available for his occupation;

 the application for a temporary dwelling at Clamoak Farm has not arisen from a recent subdivision of Clamoak Farm or a recent disposal of a dwelling from the farm;

 there is no building at Clamoak Farm which is suitable for conversion to a dwelling, bearing in mind that what is being applied for is only a temporary dwelling;

 the site of the proposed temporary dwelling would be better, from the agricultural point of view, if it was closer to the farm buildings, rather than set apart from them.

In conclusion, it is my opinion that the planning application is supported from the agricultural point of view, although this is a somewhat unusual case of a temporary agricultural worker’s dwelling, in that temporary dwellings are usually the precursor to an application for a permanent dwelling. This is not the situation in this case. The applicant stressed to me that he will never want to see another permanent dwelling built on Clamoak Farm.

Following on from that, and because the old Annex A advised (in paragraph 13) that planning authorities should not normally grant temporary permissions for agricultural workers’ dwellings for more than three years, I have looked at the application from the point of view of giving Mr Hillson the benefit of a three year permission to give him the opportunity to further establish his farming business, and then to be in a better position to rent another farm, which will have a farmhouse. Your Authority will have the opportunity to review the situation at the end of a three year permission for the temporary dwelling if, at that time, Mr Hillson has not achieved this ambition.

The applicant’s agent has seen the full version of the advisors report and made some comments: criticising reference to the PPS7 Annexe A criteria as inappropriate on the grounds that it is no longer relevant guidance; answering the criticism that it is premature by stating that his client needs to plan ahead and stating that his client is not in a position to buy another house in the area.

The Council’s agricultural advisor has responded by acknowledging that the test is ‘special circumstances’, as set out in the NPPF, and re-iterating the point that the recent sub-division is a fact, not an opinion. The reference to the PPS7 criteria is only to provide some framework and consistency in assessing what the NPPF phase ‘special circumstances‘ means in this context.

Representations Neighbours have been notified of the application and a site notice posted. This has resulted in receipt of 4 Letters of Representation (LOR’s), all object to the proposal. The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows

Object green field site and AONB. The site lies in AONB, SSSI, SAC, Tamar Valley and World Heritage Site.

22

Policy H31 is very clear on these matters. The applicant’s family have recently removed the agricultural tie from the adjacent dwelling and sold it. We believe the policy H31 (i) has been violated for a start. The farm owned a tied cottage and sold it. Whether the current person farming the land sold the relevant house is neither here nor there. Farmers and their families need to understand that you cannot keep selling houses with tie Agricultural tenancy and then get one again when the next generation or two find they should have kept it.

The house with the tenancy has been up for sale fairly recently and could have been bought back by the farm - or at least an attempted re-purchase. It is our view no such attempt was made. The tie on the house has bow been removed - why?

If you allow this to go ahead on a site worth up to £300,000 plus on the open market – we estimate , then what sort of signal does it send out to those youngsters who cannot even afford a house let alone a tiny plot in a crammed village.

The farmer does not have to live on site – with modern equipment you can monitor any shed via a mobile signal .He is a sheep farmer tending we believe to several sites and one could argue if he has to be here why not there by his other fields . But most importantly with modern equipment this can be sorted out. This current farmer runs pretty new equipment – he can afford to buy in the village and use monitoring equipment if he runs the house on the site argument.

The applicant has a viable agricultural business. He has choices. He could remain living in the annex of the family farm house. He could apply for the new housing at Woolacombe Road. He does not need additional accommodation in the proposed caravan fro himself or other workers.

It is our view this is mainly an application to grab a piece of fabulous land for nil amount of money .You have in our view a responsibility to make the point to all other farmers to realise that they need to hang on to their tied house as they may not always be renewed once lost for possibly making a quick amount of cash. They cannot cherry pick prime sensationally beautiful green site plots whenever they might need another house.

Relevant Planning History None

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development/Sustainability The site is located in open countryside outside the defined limits of established settlements. There is a strong presumption against isolated dwellings in the countryside. This is set out in the detailed policies of the West Devon Borough Council Local Plan Review as amended by the adopted Core Strategy 2005 and SP5 (Spatial Strategy) of the Core Strategy itself. Policy SP5 states:-

‘New development will be concentrated in the Main Towns of Okehampton and Tavistock. Limited development in the Local Centres and Villages may be permitted where it is demonstrated that it will contribute to wider sustainability benefits for the area. Development in the countryside will be strictly controlled and housing only permitted where there is a clear essential agricultural, horticultural or forestry need.’

23

It is reiterated in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Paragraph 55 of the NPPF states:- ‘Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as (for example) the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside.’

Planning permission for a new dwelling, or temporary mobile home, in this location would therefore be most likely refused on strong policy grounds unless the applicant can demonstrate a convincing case for an exception to policy.

Agricultural tied dwellings, as exceptions to general policy, are codified in Policies H31, H32 & H33 of the West Devon Borough Council Local Plan Review – March 2005 (As amended by the Adopted Core Strategy). This sets out the grounds upon which they are considered. Policy H31 states:- Residential development, outside the defined limits of settlements, and where Policy H29 does not apply will not be permitted unless all the following criteria are met:- (i) There is written independent evidence that of a genuine and sustained need for a dwelling, that need being based upon an essential agricultural, forestry or horticultural requirement for a full time worker to be resident on the holding; (ii) The local planning authority has no reason to believe that the need for an additional dwelling has arisen primarily due to the recent sub-division of the holding and/or the recent disposal of a dwelling from the holding. (iii) There is no building on the holding suitable for conversion to dwelling; (iv) The dwelling is sited close to existing agricultural buildings unless it can be clearly demonstrated that a more isolated location is essential for the operation of the holding; and (v) The dwelling is in keeping with the character of the area in terms of scale, design and materials.

Policy H32 states:- Where the creation of a dwelling is primarily dependent on the creation of a new, or the major expansion of an existing, agricultural, horticultural or forestry enterprise, any permission will be phased to ensure that the new enterprise is in operation prior to the erection of a permanent dwelling. Where the viability of a new enterprise needs time to become established, permission will only be granted for temporary accommodation for a maximum period of 3 years.

And Policy H33 states:- Where either a new dwelling or temporary accommodation is permitted on, a holding subject to the provisions of Policies H31 and H32, the occupation of that dwelling, together with all the existing united dwellings on the same holding shall, subject to the individual circumstances of the case, be restricted by condition to a person solely, mainly or last working in the locality in agriculture/ forestry/ horticulture or a widow or widower of such a person, and to any resident dependents.

The views of the Council’s specialist agricultural consultant that there is a requirement for an agriculturally tied dwelling in connection with this smallholding is accepted. It is not considered that the need has come about as a result of a recent subdivision of the agricultural holding or disposal of an agriculturally tied property. It is believed that the direct link between the previously agriculturally tied property, Known as Marshmoor., and Clamoak Farm was severed in 1975 when the farm was sold separate to the cottage; and the indirect

24 link with the faming community in the wider area severed in 2010, when the owners of Marshmoor successfully persuaded the Local Planning Authority to remove the tie.

With hindsight that decision now looks insufficiently future-proofed. Within five years of a case being made for lifting a tie on a dwelling in the area, the Local Planning Authority is facing an application for a new dwelling with an agricultural tie in the same area – albeit as a mobile home on a temporary basis. Parish Council and residents’ concern that the process is unfair and open to abuse is, to some extent, understandable.

After 50 plus years of a planning system that allows occupationally tied dwellings in open countryside, as exceptions to the general constraint policies, there is effectively a closed sub- market of such properties which interfaces, somewhat awkwardly, and possibly in a weighted way, with the open housing market. Inevitably there is often a degree of mismatch between the distribution and ownership of properties with agricultural ties and the housing needs of people who work the land. The system therefore has to allow for change: the removal of occupational ties where they are no longer relevant and the development of new dwellings with agricultural ties where the need can be satisfactorily demonstrated.

The policy regime set out in Policies H31, H32 and H33 of West Devon Borough Council Local Plan Review seeks to provide a robust framework for assessing planning applications for new occupationally tied dwellings and for applications to remove ties on an existing property and release it to open market. But there are limits to what the policies can reasonably be expected to achieve. Assessment has to be on the evidence provided against prevailing policy at the time of determination of the application. It’s not quite a snapshot, but more a limited exposure than time lapse shot. There is very little scope for safeguarding an ‘unwanted’ occupational tie on a dwelling in anticipation of a future need within the area and only a basic oversight of the marketing of such tied properties within the submarket.

Crucially the Local Planning Authority cannot prevent the severance of ownership of an agriculturally tied dwelling from an agricultural holding. But invariably when this occurs it is more difficult to resist an application to remove the tie. In theory an occupationally tied property, severed from its agricultural holding, remains available, at a rental or sale price reflecting its submarket status, to suitably qualified residents -i.e. retired farm workers, their widows/ers, new entrants into farm working whose main income is from farming etc.

In practice, if the owner of a property subject to an unwanted occupational tie can evidence that it has been appropriately marketed – farming/rural press specialist agents wide enough area– at a fair price – a difficult concept given the disparity between rural house prices and affordability of many of those eligible - for a reasonable period of time with no firm interest a LPA would struggle to remove an application to release the tie. The occupational tie also fetters raising a mortgage for potential purchasers.

The Policy H33, requirement is for an agricultural tie, for the mobile home. It is recommended that a condition specifying an agricultural tie be attached to any planning permission granted.

Design/Landscape: Mobile homes, and the associated paraphernalia which accompanies them, rarely make a positive contribution to the character of the countryside. But this site is reasonably well screened by trees to the south and is not especially conspicuous within the rural landscape. No objection is raised on either Strategic Policy 17 (Landscape Character) or Policy 20 (Promoting High Quality Design) grounds.

25

The applicant’s have provided a credible explanation as to why the temporary dwelling should be sited in the chosen location and not closer to existing buildings, as recommended by policy H31. It is argued that mains electricity and water would be more difficult to provide, involving unsightly poles in the landscape and extra cost, and that it would have to be located under high voltage power cables that are injurious to health. Despite being in a slight dip, the chosen site is fairly conspicuous within the landscape, and it is a sensitive location within the AONB and there are some residual concerns about the siting; but, on balance, these are not considered to be sufficient to justify recommending refusal.

Neighbour Amenity: The site is located in open countryside. There are no neighbouring properties in the immediate vicinity.

Highways/Access: The site is readily accessible from the unclassified road that runs from Bere Ferrers to Wier Quay via Clamoak. A track from the existing farm gate to the site of the proposed temporary dwelling would have to be created, but this can be done fairly easily.

Other Matters: None. Infrastructure contributions are not generally sought from dwellings whose occupation is restricted to agricultural workers.

Planning Policy This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and, where relevant, with Sections 66 and 72 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas).

Planning Policy All standard policies listed (delete where not relevant, add others as relevant, including NPPF):

West Devon Borough Council Core Strategy 2011 SP10 – Supporting the Growth of the Economy SP15 – Traffic Management SP16 – Safer Communities SP17 – Landscape Character SP19 – Biodiversity SP20 – Promoting High Quality Design

West Devon Borough Council Local Plan Review 2005(as amended 2011) NE10 – Protection of the Countryside and Other Open Spaces H31 – Residential Development in the Countryside H32 - Residential Development in the Countryside H33 - Residential Development in the Countryside H34 – Removal of Agricultural Occupancy Conditions T1 – Walking and Cycling T2 – Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety T3 – Protection of Existing Footways, Cycleways and Bridleways T8 – Car Parking T9 – The Highway Network PS2 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems PS3 – Sewage Disposal

26

Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report. ______

27