Agenda item

Resubmission: Erection of rural worker's dwelling

Land South of Woodside Cottage, Bardon Mill, Northumberland

The Planning Area Manager (West) introduced the application with the aid of a powerpoint presentation and advised that there were no updates following publication of the report.

Miss Ferguson, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  She highlighted the following:-

·        The owners had commenced discussions with her four years previously due to there being a genuine and pressing need on the farm for two workers to care adequately for their livestock.  This had led to the son living in a caravan on the farm for most of his adult life.

·        The process had been delayed due to Covid, staff shortages and the sadly the death of the applicant’s wife before the appeal hearing.

·        The report concluded that there was a clear functional need on the farm for a second worker to live there, otherwise there it would result in harm to the livestock and the business.  It was imperative that the livestock had year-round care including nighttime calving and lambing.

·        The report also concluded that the business was financially viable and had a reasonable prospect of remaining so. The family had farmed there for four generations.

·        The only issue in dispute was the availability and suitability or otherwise of an existing dwelling, ‘Keeper’s Cottage’, to meet the need.  This was the reason the Inspector dismissed an appeal for a larger house two years ago and the recommended reason for refusal.

·        Keeper’s Cotttage was a private investment with the income being part of the applicant’s pension planning.  It was also succession planning and was to be left to his daughter, whilst the son would inherit the farm in which he was now a partner. The alternative was that the farm be split upon the death of the applicant which would be to its detriment.

·        Paragraph 10 of planning practice guidance states that a decision maker could take into account the fact that a new dwelling on site is essential for the continued viability of a farming business through the farm succession process. The Inspector overlooked this material consideration, and it is also not mentioned in the committee report.

·        They were of the view that Keeper’s Cottage was beyond the means of a farm worker and was rented out with stables and land.  The appeal Inspector considered that the cost of building the new dwelling would not be dissimilar to the rent for Keepers Cottage, assuming that the house was separated from the land and stables and a reduced rent was accepted.

·        They believed that there was an error within the Inspector’s decision at paragraph 10 that the daughter owned the house, which was not true at that time.

·        In a letter to the Council, the daughter states that she would not consent to a reduction in the rental income of her investment. Nor does she consider it reasonable to evict long-standing tenants from the property. She has no financial interest in the farm.

·        Significant changes since the appeal hearing which should be taken into account when arriving at a decision include:

-       The size of the proposed dwelling has been reduced to make it cheaper to build.

-       The daughter had inherited a 50% share in Keeper’s Cottage and confirmed that she would not accept a reduced rent for it or permit the eviction of the current tenants.

-       The son has been made partner in the farm, securing his future in the business and the farm’s succession.

-       The rent at Keeper’s Cottage had been reviewed and had increased from £1000 to £1500 per month, making it even less viable for the son to rent.

·        Ridley Farm was a successful farming business as a result of the commitment and hard work of the applicant and his son.  It was the sort of rural businesses that planning and the Council should look to support and protect. They hoped that Members would therefore grant permission.

Mr Ferguson, the applicant, added they wanted to keep a young person on the farm in a tied agricultural cottage.  It was difficult to get young people involved in farming and important not to lose valuable skills.  They needed to do everything necessary to keep young people involved.

In response to questions from Members of the Committee the following information was provided:-

·        The availability of properties on site which would meet the needs of the farming enterprise needed to be explored.  Those properties did not need to be owned by the farm or the family.

·        The Inspectors decision on a similar proposal was that it had not been demonstrated that there was no other suitable accommodation in the area which would meet the needs of the farming enterprise and available to a farm worker.

·        The intention of the family did not mean that Keeper’s Cottage was unavailable.

·        Information received with this application stated that the secure tenancy benefitted from succession which differed to the information submitted with the previous application.  An independent assessment carried out on behalf of the Council by Alan Jackson stated that as the tenancy of the farm was granted after 1984, it was only secure for the lifetime of the applicant with no succession rights.  However, it was expected that the agricultural tenancy would pass from father to son on the father’s retirement.

·        NLP Policy HOU 8 states that the development of isolated homes in the open countryside will only be supported where:

a.  There is an essential and clearly established need for a full-time rural worker necessary to meet the operational needs of a rural business to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside, and where it can be demonstrated that:

i. The business is financially sound and viable with a clear prospect of remaining so, the activity and landholding units concerned having been established for at least three years and been profitable for at least one of those last three years; and

ii.  The functional need could not be fulfilled by any existing dwelling on the landholding unit or any other existing accommodation in the immediate area, which is suitable (including by means of refurbishment or appropriate extension) and potentially available for occupation by the workers concerned.

·        The aforementioned policy required consideration of suitable properties in the area.  They did not need to be owned by the farm or the family.  Officers had concluded that Keeper’s Cottage could be made available.  If Members concluded differently, this could be justification for a decision that the application be granted.

·        The application under consideration was smaller than the property considered by the Inspector.

·        Eviction of a short-term tenant of Keeper’s Cottage was not a material planning consideration.

·        The costs of building the smaller property had been reviewed by Alan Jackson and had not found a significant difference between the rent on Keeper’s Cottage and the annual costs of constructing and fitting out a new dwelling.

·        The Inspector had concluded that Keeper’s Cottage was not economically unviable for use as a rural worker’s dwelling.

·        The rent of Keeper’s Cottage had been set by the family and had not been tested.

Councillor Hutchinson proposed that the application be granted planning permission, contrary to the officer recommendation, and that the wording of conditions to be delegated to the Director of Planning with the agreement of the Chair, including an agricultural occupancy condition.  It was accepted that the business satisfied the tests in Northumberland Local Plan Policy HOU 8 and required 2 workers to reside at or near the farm.  Keeper’s Cottage was privately owned and was not available as a rural worker cottage and at an affordable rent for a rural worker and there was not suitable alternative accommodation elsewhere in the vicinity of the farm.

This was seconded by Councillor Sharp.

There was some concern regarding the view taken on other applications of a similar nature and setting a precedent for applications in the future.  Other members were familiar with the business and believed there was a genuine need for a rural workers cottage and did not agree with the Inspector that there was an available property on site.  They also commented that each application was judged on its own merits.

Upon being put to the vote the results were as follows:

FOR: 8; AGAINST: 3; ABSTENTION: 1.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED permission and that the wording of conditions to be delegated to the Director of Planning with the agreement of the Chair, including a condition ensuring that occupation is limited to a rural worker only.