39 replies to this topic

[che]

Hi KChally,
It looks like they are on the backfoot and struggling to find an answer. Why not ask a couple more.

1 Details of figures they have quoted in the past and for which year.
2 What is the lowest paid position in the council? (even planners should be able to find that one out)

It is obvious they are being less than helpful which you would hope would not help them if an appeal is needed.

Keep at em Dave C

[happymanoftheworld]

2 What is the lowest paid position in the council? (even planners should be able to find that one out)

Dave C

I like that one Dave C - I can tell you the easy way..... ask any staff in a children's care home.... but on their first year there..... I know, coz I ws that person. Having said that, since then there is a very good chance that the council in your area runs a cafe somewhere which uses an agency for imported labour. Would be interesting to find out what their "condoned by the council" wage is. Hope your sun is shining!

[KChally]

Hoorah, Finally received reply from planning department regarding profit for 1 year in 3 after several further emails. I also had to remind them I was entitled to this info under the freedom of information act. This is what they said.

There is no minimum figure for the profit of an agricultural unit in National or Local Planning Policy. Annex A of PPS7 does include a financial test and this states that the unit and agricultural activity concerned have been established for at least 3 years, have been profitable for at least one of them, are currently financially sound and have a clear prospect of remaining so.

With regard to the requirement of the holding being currently financially sound and clear prospect of remaining so, there is no definition of financial soundness or viability in the planning guidance however, normal economic assessments of any business would expect a financial performance which provided a reasonable return on the resources deployed in it, notably land, labour and capital. Such an assessment base would accord with advice previously given by MAFF to Local Planning Authorities on the subject of agricultural dwellings (1992)

With regard to a reasonable return upon land, the MAFF methodology assumes that a minimum return to the land would be a value equivalent to the rental income attainable from the land.

The return on labour would be the minimum agricultural wage inclusive of national insurance contributions.

A reasonable return upon capital following the MAFF methodology would be a 2.5% return on input into the holding.

This email is an officer view only and is written without prejudice to any future decisions made by the council. (This is obviously another get out clause)

I would be interested to hear what anyone thinks of the above.

Regards
KChally

[che]

Just did a quick calculation based on AMW + self employed NI contributions = £12563. If you allow
£200000 to purchase land, stock and equipment which you would need to return £5000 pa. Gives a grand total of £17563 pa.
You could obviously reduce this figure by reducing imputs. I suspect the return on capital could be hard to enforce especially considering the value of present days farms and reported farm incomes.

[Thegreatescaper]

KChally

I think you have a gem of an answer from your planner. He may state 'without predjudice' however he does illistrate as to where he obtained all his reasoning, therefore it is much easier for you to apply the points yourself in any future disagreement. I would even go as far to say that the figures are reasonable.

I would however suggest that you remember to include the building cost in your capital expediture as I am sure they will!

[che]

Hi K Chally,
Agree they will try to add build costs but I feel this could be challenged on many fronts. NMW should cover all living costs it does for others in society. There are of course other variables, tax credits, council tax rebates, pensions, savings and spouses income. Imagine telling the general public they could not use equity to purchase another property or do a self build. This is just another case of planners raising the bar to suit there own end.
As for "without predjudice" I doubt any court of law would uphold this principle in this case. You have merely asked them the criterion they are using to judge your case. They would be expected by the court to provide this information. Like I said before the planners appear to be on the back foot. Daves book and this site have done much to redress the balance of power. I believe it is important that people keep contributing to this site it is a bit like a jigsaw you might have a piece which will help us all to see the bigger picture.

Dave C
.

[surreydodger]

http://www.wealden.g...F.aspx?ID=26137

The above link refers to an application for dwelling on alpaca farm. The relevant bit to this thread is near the bottom of the page. The LARA Farm Consultancy report (chap called Richard Wood who worked on behalf of my local LPA and prepared them areport re. my PD notice,, seemd a decent chap) outlines some interesting points on commensurate size of dwelling and financial numbers needed.

Another small piece of the jigsaw

[happymanoftheworld]

Hi SurreyD - the link doesn't work - I am trying now to search "Alpaca" on the Wealdon site - All the best to you all.

[surreydodger]

Hi Happy

Seems to work for me but here it is in full just in case



www.wealden.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=26137

[happymanoftheworld]

Hi Happy

Seems to work for me but here it is in full just in case



www.wealden.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=26137

Thanks "Dodgy" --- that works!

[happymanoftheworld]

Thanks "Dodgy" --- that works!

Ha! What a swine of a Parish Council ---- unbelieveable. How on earth can they demand that the male and female Alpaca's be seperated. I love the accountant's objections....The accounts are "creative"
Also - Manipulation/exploitation of planning system with spurious agricultural justification for a new dwelling/This seems to be a way around the planning laws/Other residents are not allowed to purchase a few animals and have the right to build in the AONB GREAT reading - printing and taking to bed with me! Thanks for that SD.

[che]

Hi Surreydodger,
Gem of a piece, appears they are only looking at AMW so I will be using it as a bench mark. The government is keen to encourage small businesses to kickstart the economy whilst planners make life difficult. Nice story for the local rag.

Dave C

[surreydodger]

Glad you were able to get through in the end Happy. Makes for some bizarre reading when it gets down to Parish level

Dave, I think the mean wage is a fair starting point and wouldn't find that unreasonable. The problem will be that some planning offices will surely be trying to invent their own figures.

One point that I would like to find more on is the planners trying to include the cost of maintaining a dwelling. Do we know if they look to see if one is supposed to be able to afford a mortgage on full repayment or just the interest portion of the mortgage? It ought to be down to the individual to decide how they want to plan and pay their future finances and if one has the option to pay an interest only mortgage, that should be the case. Many a financial case is made for paying interest only on the basis that when the capital becomes due (say in 25 yrs) then the asset may be re-financed or sold off to cover the repayment of the initial loan.

[KChally]

Have just found this new info which came into force on 1 Oct 2010 - New Agricultural Minimum Wage

www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmmanage/working/agwages/documents/awo10.pdf

I think this should help me with answers to my previous posts. Ive printed it off and stuck it on the wall, ready to photocopy and send to planning dept when necessary.

I have to admit after living in caravan for a few years now, I am feeling the need to look further ahead and start to think about the house we need/would like to build. This dream we all have is fantastic but such hard work. Our business is doing really well considering the economic climate and hopefully looks set to increase more over the next 12 months. (I hope this may help others who may also be feeling a little weathered like myself - keep grafting)

KChally

[che]

Hi all,
asked our planners for a figure for viability test and the reply was "there is no threshold value that I can give in relation to income to satisfy a viability test." As by there own admission they dont have a figure I have sent them a link to wealden alpacca farm case and suggested that we use that figure ie minimum agricultural workers wage. Also suggested that they would not want to make it more difficult for council tax payers particularly in low wage area. I will post the reply in due course.

[surreydodger]

"there is no threshold value that I can give in relation to income to satisfy a viability test."

It is that type of statement that makes one realise that so much of the planning system in this country is a farce. How can anyone reasonably be expected to comply and meet with the laws of the land if they are not written so as to be complied with?

Viva le Revolution!!

I think your forward action Dave to bring the planners to account up front is a shrewd move. It'll be interesting to see how they respond. There either has to be a recognised format by planners, nationwide, to calculate a figure to meet the Financial Test or it comes down to their own discretion/guesstimate. If it is the latter then there is possibly a case for some kind of discrimination based on judgements handed down dependent on where you live. Every man is entitled to be treated equal.

Looking at the minimum rates of pay as per the Agricultural Wages Order, 2010, then the highest is that based on a farm managers duties (Grade 6). This equates to a basic wage of £18,008 a year.

The lowest would probably be a Grade 2 worker at £13,344. I think you'd have to form an interesting argument to be considered a Grade 2 worker if it is your own farm that you are running.

Don't foorget, there is the application by planners of the size of dwelling they will allow as an agricultural dwelling, based on your financial test results.... and that's another very grey area so far as I know

[che]

Hi All copied this from the chapter 7 site sure they wont mind as they are a like minded group. Interesting one to quote when the planners dream up the viability figure.

"4.18 Moreover some local authorities continue to use the concepts of notional rent and notional return to labour (whereby entirely theoretical costs are deducted from an applicantÍs actual profit) even though there is no longer any authority for using this methodology. This accounting method derives from MAFF guidelines LU/1893 and LU/1913. We have a letter from DEFRA stating that these were made obsolete by the 1997 version of PPG7.24,Yet we have an Appeal decision letter dating from August 2002 where the local authority rejected an applicants financial returns on the basis that they did not take account of notional rent."

And the penalty for false accounting is up to 7 yrs imprisonment. Unlikely I know but hold the thought it leaves a warm glow.

Dave C

[Groundhog]

At least you would have somewhere to live !

[che]

Hi Derek O,
It was the planners I was hoping they would lock up.