YORKSHIRE DALES NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY ITEM 5 (a) Committee: PLANNING Date: 10 December 2019 Report: Reference Back: Full planning permission for change of use of the dwelling, barn and agricultural buildings to form offices, storage buildings and workshops at Red Lion Farm, Beamsley, C/07/38E Purpose of the report 1. To provide further advice to Members on this application. Background 2. At the meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 12th November 2019, Members resolved to defer consideration of the above application as they were minded to refuse the application contrary to Officer Recommendation. A copy of the report from that meeting is attached for information. 3. The reasons given by Members for that decision were: 1. The conflict with Policy – specifically BE3, criterion A, the modern buildings are not surplus to requirements and not redundant, also Policy C9, the loss of a community facility (farm shop); 2. The personal circumstances namely (a) the hardship to the tenant farmer, his wife and family that would be caused by the loss of farmhouse and the buildings and (b) the impact on the tenant’s business and livelihood; 3. The need to protect small Dales farms in view of the National Park Authority’s 1st statutory purpose. Analysis of reasons 4. Members are reminded that Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that decisions on planning applications must be taken in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This is a presumption in favour of the Development Plan which in this case is the Yorkshire Dales Local Plan (2015-2030). The Development Plan is the starting point and must be followed unless there is good reason not to. 5. In considering a planning application Members should therefore firstly form a clear judgement as to whether the proposal accords with the Development Plan. If it does not, they should then consider whether there are any material considerations of sufficient weight to justify a departure from the Development Plan. 6. For matters to be ‘material considerations’ they must be genuine planning matters (relating to the use and development of land) and fairly and reasonably related to the development concerned. Personal circumstances can be material considerations but only in exceptional or special circumstances. 7. The Local Plan needs to be read as a whole. The strategic policies SP1 (Sustainable development), and SP4 (Development Quality) are relevant as are business and employment policies BE2 (Rural land-based enterprises) and BE3 (Re-use of modern buildings), community policy C9 (loss of community facilities) and policies L1 (Heritage assets), L2 and L3 that concern proposals for the conversion of traditional buildings. Members are advised to read the full version of these policies in the Local Plan. Reason 1 - The conflict with Policy – specifically BE3, criterion A, the modern buildings are not surplus to requirements and not redundant, also Policy C9, the loss of a community facility (farm shop); 8. Policy BE3a) states that proposals for the change of use of modern buildings to new business and employment uses will be permitted if the building is no longer needed for its current use and will not displace the use elsewhere or conflict with an adjoining use. A key consideration in applying this criterion is to ensure that buildings permitted for an agricultural use are only reused for alternative uses if they are now surplus to requirements and their reuse would not lead to a need for new agricultural buildings in the open countryside in replacement. 9. Members are advised that at least some of the modern agricultural buildings are still in use, although the largest building was empty and the other modern buildings were in low level use when officers visited in June. The tenant farmer has stated however, that the buildings are all necessary to operate their farm business and that it is their intention to restock the farm in due course. 10. Officers previously advised Members that, whilst the proposed change of use did conflict with policy BE3a), because of the low level use of the buildings, that the landlords (the applicant) had confirmed no further buildings would be constructed and that they had offered an alternative agricultural building elsewhere, the purpose of the policy would still be met if permission was granted. However, Members have considered that there is not sufficient weight to set aside this criterion and are entitled to make that judgement. 11. Members also commented on the loss of the farm shop as a loss of a community facility contrary to policy C9 of the Local Plan. Policy C9 states that development that would result in the loss of, or have an unacceptable adverse effect on an existing community facility will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the current use is no longer needed or a suitably located replacement facility of at least equivalent standard has not been secured and the land or building could not fulfil or is not needed for an alternative community use. In this case officers advised Members that, whilst the farmshop is to a degree a community facility, the limited range and opening hours suggest that its contribution to the local community is limited. However, Members are entitled to consider that the shop makes sufficient contribution to the local community to be classed as a vital community facility, the loss of which could be harmful to the local community. Reason 2 - The personal circumstances namely (a) the hardship to the tenant farmer, his wife and family that would be caused by the loss of farmhouse and the buildings and (b) the impact on the tenant’s business and livelihood; 12. Members have been advised in the officer’s report that the personal circumstances of the tenant, namely the personal hardship to the tenant and the impact on their business, are a material consideration in this case. Members are reminded that personal circumstances can be material considerations but only in exceptional or special circumstances. The tenant has informed officers that the grant of planning permission could give the landlord the rights to serve a Notice to Quit to terminate the tenancy on the property. It is acknowledged that this would have an impact on the tenant’s livelihood and home as they would have to quit the farm buildings and have no buildings to serve the remaining 44 acres of tenanted land. They would also have to leave the tenanted farmhouse. It is understood from the applicant that compensation is payable under the terms of the agricultural tenancy and an alternative house on the Estate has been offered. The applicant has also stated that an alternative agricultural building would be available to the tenant. It is considered therefore that the loss of the tenanted house and buildings would be somewhat compensated for. However, it is acknowledged that this would still be significantly disruptive for the tenant and his family who have farmed at Red Lion Farm for several generations. However, it is for Members to consider whether such an impact affect is so exceptional as to warrant refusal of the application for this reason. Reason 3 - The need to protect small Dales farms in view of the National Park Authority’s 1st statutory purpose. 13. Members have referred to Dales farms as part of the cultural heritage of the National Park. The first statutory National Park purpose is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park. The National Park has a traditional pastoral landscape created by livestock farmers over several centuries. This same livestock farming is also deeply interwoven into local life and culture. As such the Dales farming landscape is part of the natural beauty and the cultural heritage of the National Park. In this regard the traditional pastoral landscape and livestock farming are recognised as Special Qualities in the National Park Management Plan. 14. Whilst it is acknowledged that traditional livestock farming in the Dales is a Special Quality and therefore forms a significant part of the natural beauty and cultural heritage of the National Park, this relates to the landscape and local culture rather than individual farmers. It is also considered that a large rural estate, such as the Bolton Abbey Estate, have an equally important role to play in managing and maintaining the National Park landscape and forming part of the cultural heritage of the National Park. It is considered that the comparative value of the current farm and the Estate in terms of National Park purposes is equivocal and difficult to quantify. It is therefore considered that the proposal is not contrary to the first statutory purpose of the National Park and as such it is recommended that this reason should not be used as a basis for refusing permission. Conclusion 15. The proposal does conflict with policy BE3a) of the Local Plan, although it is considered that the proposal would maintain the overall purpose of that policy, which seeks to make more effective use of existing buildings for appropriate new employment and business purposes whilst resisting the displacement of buildings into open countryside. However, Members can reasonably conclude that the proposal does not accord with the Development Plan and the material considerations set out in the officer’s report do not justify a departure in this instance. Members can also conclude that the farmshop is a vital community facility the loss of which would harm the fabric of remote rural communities, contrary to policy C9 of the Local Plan. 16. Members are also entitled to give weight to the personal and business hardship of the tenant.