49 replies to this topic

[surreydodger]

Hi everybody,

Piglet put up a similarly titled topic in the Planning Permissions forum a while back. Since then we have witnessed many comments on how the NPPF is going to affect all of us going forward to develop our land based business' and live on the land whilst executing those plans and developments.

As there have been so many varied comments, some with opposing points of view, some with possibly huge ramifications, it is becoming obvious that a topic thread dedicated to what is certainly going to change the planning conditions, is required as a sticky for existing users and newcomers to be able to read and comment on as things progress.

A Short Brief.

The current planning regulations are as we all know, somewhat open to interpretation. Sometimes those interpretations are positive and sometimes they are negative. Frequently we come across planning decisions on two very similar yet seperate planning applications with totally different outcomes - Permitted or Refused. These are based on planning decision makers interpretations based around what are called 'Planning Policy Guidance' or 'Planning Policy Statement' - PPG or PPS. There is a seperate PPG or PPS set of guidance notes to the many areas of planning such as protecting Green Belt, Housebuiding and Rural Development.

All of these PPG's and PPS's are set to be replaced with the one National Planning Policy Framework, hence you will have likely heard of the outcry that the 1500 pages or so of PPG's/PPS's are set to be reduced to about 60 pages altogether.

The anti's to such a scheme fear that the reduced guidelines will make it easier for development nationally. Those for it, see it as a way to reduce planning waiting time, speed up developments and yes, probably easier to gain planning than it was before. The crux of the NPPF is that the intention is to allow planning applications unless there is very good reason to refuse. Before, it has been a case of having to prove to the enth degree that planning applications should be permitted and it took very little to have them refused. Planning authorities would have you believe that they are impartial but without going into boring detail and evidence, almost anyone who has been through the planning process will tell you that is just not the case.

Here within this forum we are not overly concerned with all the details that the NPPF will bring. However, we are obviously very concerned as to how it will change our plans and paths in obtaining our goal to live and work on the land.

Under PPS 7, Annexe A there followed a long list of obligatons that ALL had to be fulfilled before one was likely to obtain permission to live on ones land. To a large extent I personally agree with those conditions because without them, those with deeper pockets would just be buying up useful agricultural land, developing it and selling it on for a profit. Nothing wrong with profit but the loss of agricultural land for a developers fattened wallet is nothing short of land rape in my view. Hence, a degree of control is required. I also would point out that we are short of housing in this country hence we are ransomed into spending most of our earnings on a place to live.

However, the controls set out in Annex A are really nothing short of farcical as they stand. It pains me to say it because I am sure some readers will read the following and will think pound signs. Currently, you could build up your farm using tried and tested ways to gain functional rights to live there and then polish it off with gaining financial credibility. Anyone who knows anything about accountancy and business accounts can make the worst of business' look very creditable,,, no, I'm not revealing it

So, you do the basics as above and at the end of three or four years you build your permanent home, be it with an agrcultural tie which does diminish the value to a degree. Having gotten that permission you either sell up and take the money or reduce the agricultural business to three chickens and perhaps a couple of wooly lawnmowers.

This is why Annex A is such a farce and all it really does is create an atmosphere where every such planning application is viewed with hieghtened suspicion and scepticism. This extra scepticism achieves very little as the fraudulent types carrying on their land rape projects, know pretty much how to do things whilst the innocent but genuine applicant will generally struggle and is often either mstaken as a chancer or just not competent and thus refused.

So will the NPPF go anyway to changing this?

At the moment I can't see that it will. It would need some major reform in planning to do this, say like the old Scottish crofting system whereby if a croft was not being used to a fuller potential, a buyer could request it to be sold. Note that the crofting system is not perfect and has been reduced in the passing years. But that's the kind of thinking we would need to see put in place before any such abuses to the system could even begin to have an effect.

What will the NPPF bring rurally?

There are two main sections in the draft NPPF document that seem to affect us the most. Section 81 and Section 113 being the most pertinent. Section 81 states that policy should support sustainable economic growth in rural areas and promote sustainable growth of rural business including diversification. Section 113 merely states that planners should avoid isolated homes in the countryside unless it meets - the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside.

That one line which is all there is regarding agricultural dwelling replaces the whole of Annex A. Now to some this may be considered to be a far easier guideline to comply with than all of those in Annex A but I wouldn't get to excited yet. I am not sure we have to be overly concerned by 'near' as it would generally be acceptable to build any new home close to ones exisitng farm buildings. What does concern me is 'the essential need'. Whereas before under Annex A we had a host of reasons to comply with and as explaned earlier, some being spurious and overly regimentated, now we face an ambiguous one liner which in reality is so grey as to be either completely transparent or oblique.

Ask your self, what defines 'essential need' ?

We now face new propositions of discovering what planners would concur as essential. I have little doubt that what I would consider essential will not only be different to the planners but probably to most of you reading here. For the record, I and my wife are driven by the welfare of our animals and I expect them to get the same treatment and care as the rest of my family. In some ways, that has to be higher because whereas one of my family can turn round and tell me they're ill, my animals can not so being directly on hand under 24 hour supervision is for me 'essential'.

Planners on the other hand will probably look no further than recomendations as given by DEFRA and Animal Welfare Acts which in turn, they may prescribe diferently to me.

So, straight away with just one example, it would appear there is going to be a lot of arguing as to what may justify 'essential'. and we haven't even touched things like security, plant protection, bio-security, non agricultural animals, etc., etc.

Financial Tests.

I recently read a comment that the need for a financial test won't be required in the future. Whereas, as I have explained before, the financial test is a bit of a farce and should indeed be made redundant, does this in turn lead to unecessary rural dwellings?

One thing that never seems to get consdiered in the financial test is market price fluctuatios. Ten years ago I'd have need a flock of hundreds if not thousands of sheep to make a reasonable profit (if any profit atall back then!!). Consider then that I'd put in an application for a dwelling. I may well have been able to justify a need to live on the land to look after the animals but I'd have failed purely on not meeting the financial test. Yet, a few years later and the value of lamb has shot up and all of a sudden under the guidelines that say new rural dwellings should be commensurate to income, I can build Buckingham Palace ! Obviusly that is dumb and just so is if the above happened in reverse and I'd built Buckingham Palce in the good years only to see my income disappear as market prices drove down.

Maybe the answer lies in proper use of the land where income is not the ruling factor but the number of animals kept on the land is. The same could likely be applied to food plants as well and both in connection with welfare and good husbandry practices.

So, and I thank you for reading this far, this thread will hopefully become our centre to discuss, raise, propose, argue and agree to disagree in timely fashion, any thoughts and subjects that the NPPF is likely to bring up and for us all to formulate solid reasons, evidence and facts to ensure our path is kept as easy to follow as possible.

SD

[che]

Interesting blog on this topic

http://www.ruralwork...-rural-england/

[surreydodger]

Intersting piece Che though I feel they have overlooked the pertinence of section 113. Indeed, at first glance I thought this was a website after my own heart but I see on closer inspection it's just a land selling site.

Will take a closer look this evening and thx for the link

[Cornish Gems]

Hi all - we have found it hard to believe that the financial test would be cancelled and were therefore interested to read the contents of the following link

Ministers explain NPPF transitional arrangements

and in particular the fact that Lord Atlee told the Lords: “I can categorically confirm that the Government are in no doubt that the clause as drafted does not represent any change in the current law whatever. It is declaratory of the current law, which is that where local financial considerations are material to a planning application they should be taken into account in the determination of that planning application.”

[surreydodger]

Hi CG,

Do you think that 'local finance considerations' include the financial sustainability test? I am unsure but would local finance considerations be more on the line of fees payable towards council projects, fees such as payments payable on gaining planning, i.e. bedroom tax and special levies applied by certain planning authorities as they see fit ,,, which are generally tantamount to bribes !

[Cornish Gems]

Good point SD - obviously it is going to be another case of 'in our opinion' which of course is not necessarily that of everyone else!!

[surreydodger]

Maybe CG. I am tending to think that the NPPF will rely on sustainability issues and evidence. The local finance issues are probably not connected and as said above relate to toally seperate issues. The problem therefore is what constitues 'sustainable' which is one you really can apply the 'in our opinion' criteria to.

The more I consider the argument in the original post about the farce which is currently rhe financial test, the more I feel it is there to be defeated. On top of what I wrote about it in the original post, it would seem ripe for challenge.

One farmer may have 500 acres but for whatever reason, only returns a narrow profit. Let's say the minumum profit to justify a dwelling. Another farmer has 15 acres but has a high value, intensive business returning high profits. Under the current rules, the farmer with the small amount of land and running the intensive agricultural is entitled to a much larger house than the larger farm which is only making a small profit.

The whole idea that one years worth of good accounts can determine the size of an agricultural dwelling is absurd. I can understand there should be some financial justification to allowing an agricultural dwelling but to determine the size of that dwelling based on such facts feels as though there's a human rights infringement going on??

[Romany]

Could it be that 'local financial considerations' may include employment et cetera? Such as in areas of high unemployment, the creation or ongoing success of a holding may mean jobs would become available, or increase in tourism (thus bringing more money to an area) etc etc - which may help gain positive responses to planning applications???

Just musing...

Romany

[surreydodger]

The latest draftof the National Planning Policy Framework is being debated today in Parliament. I think it will be released for viewing later on today?

[Piglet]

That should make interesting reading then - I believe that the Government is backing down a bit on their policies. Planning Officers will have a field day

[KChally]

Hi,

I dont think the financial test can be removed from the NPPF. How else could it be decided how big a house you can build. If you want to continue living in your mobile then it wouldnt be such an issue. But if you want to build a house like we do then your business has to show that you can actually afford to do it. Its much the same as having a job, in that if you want a mortgage from a building society you have to show them that you can afford the mortgage payment. Unfortunately the minimum agri wage means very little, its almost a subsistance wage. What sort of a property could you build on £15k per year and also continue to fund your agricultural business?

If we were earning only £15k per year it would be impossible for us to build the house we want (incidentally it is only 149sq mtrs) and continue to fund our business. Dont forget the "rules" mean that your business has to be able to support the building of the house and the land has to be able to provide a return on your investment and all that. So somewhere in this new NPPF document or even the LPA filing cabinets, there will be something that makes the financial test necessary.

KChally

[surreydodger]

Well it makes for riveting reading

When it comes to agricultural dwellings we have -

55. To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as

●●the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside;

Which is what it was in the previous draft with no mention of the conditions as put in Annexe A of PPS7.

On the face of it then it looks as though it's a simpler task but hang on, not so hasty! Whereas under PPS7 everything was laid out altogether as to what constituted being the applicable regulations connected with building ag dwellings,, now there's policy all over the place. It's feasible that policy statements in a completely different section of the NPPF document could be applied to anywhere else in the document.

There seems to be a fundamental key in that all development must meet the criteria of meeting an economic role (probably business based), a social role (probably meaning of use to the locals and enrichening the surroundings) and an environmental role which I assume to mean, won't harm the environment. How do these three bits of criteria affect your proposals for a dwelling?

Under section 3 it says in relation to supporting a prosperous rural economy 'promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land based businesses'. I think this is more aimed at general agricultural development than housing and is aimed at planners to support applications in order to create jobs and prosperity.

So, on the face of it, things look less arduous so long as you set up a proper agricultural trade that can prove a need to live on the land (as it was before) but perhaps there is less emphasis on the financial sounding, which I have commented on before as being legisaltion of the lowest form anyway.

[surreydodger]

Hi,

I dont think the financial test can be removed from the NPPF. How else could it be decided how big a house you can build.

KChally

How big should anyones house be KC? Personally, I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about the way the current system works. If you are making big profits you can build a big house. If you are making small profits, you can build a smaller house.

Is there any instrument in place that allows you to build a bigger house if you suddenly start making bigger profits? Do you have to reduce the size of house if the profits deterioate? For me, it is one of the dumbest pieces of planning I can think of.

What happens if I have five kids but I'm making enough to get planning permission for an ag dwelling. Under the way the rules are applied, I'd have to put some of my kids into care as I wouldn't be able to comply with the necessary room requirements as afforded in welfare rules.

But I do agree that building houses intended as agricultural dwellings, shouldn't become footballers wives palaces. The point here is what is the maximum size an agricultural dwelling can be. Let's say 4000sq.ft maximum (or whatever would be a comfortable maximum) as that then does away with this silly size based on CURRENT profits idea, or to use the planning speak 'commensurate'.

[KChally]

After meetings with our planning officer it is our understanding that it is the needs of the holding that determine the size of house you can build and not personal needs. It is also generally accepted that the maximum size of property you can build is 200 sq metres, regardless of the amount of profit you are making but also taking into account the amount of land you have. I accept my comment of "how else could it be decided how big a house you can build" may be a little misleading. What I mean is, having xxx amount of money enables you to afford to build xxxx size of house, if you require to use a mortgage.

example: in our case we have made xxxx amount of £profit so we are happy to build 149sq mt 3 bedroomed house as there is only 2 of us, with maybe son and daughter visiting occasionally. At this moment in time, if we had made double/triple the amount of profit our thoughts are that we would still only be "allowed" to build 149sq mt as we only have 6 acres. We would have liked to increase the size to 159 sq mt but our agricultural consultant was adamant that we should stick to the lower figure to give us a greater chance of succeeding with planning approval. He suggested that at a later date we could discuss the issue and maybe apply for a larger footprint at detailed drawings time or even a couple of years later, put on an extension. This would fit in with your suggestion "build a bigger house if you suddenly start making bigger profits".

This whole planning lark is not cut and dried and very open to suggestion. This NPPF document seems to be a little light on information regarding the financial side of things. What is worrying is the idea that the locals have a say and maybe even make the decision on what gets built in the area. I hope I have misunderstood this, as Parish Councils will end up with all the "power" (scary)

KChally

[Wiseowl]

As I see it, the NPPF devolves a great deal to Local Plan policies, so for more detailed guidance beyond the generalised advice about " the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside" - and nothing, note, about temporary dwellings - we will need to look at whatever established Local Plans or emerging Local Development Frameworks / Neighbourhood Plans say about permanent and/or temporary agricultural dwellings (if anything).

A problem in some cases is that in recent years some agricultural dwelling policies have been struck out of Local Plans (and not "saved") since it was assumed instead that the topic was adequately covered by the National Guidance in PPS7. Now that has been reduced to the single sentence advice referred to above, Councils may have to consider bringing back more detailed local guidance.

[surreydodger]

Wiseowl, is it right to consider that Local Plan conditions will have to be approved by central government and that the conditions imposed by the Local Plan have to meet the National criteria? I seem to recall reading that was the case but it wan't a terribly detailed piece.

[surreydodger]

Okay, think I've answered most of my own query

The NPPF comes into effect immeadiatly from day of publication but 'Annexe One' of the NPPF suggests the following....


Relevant policies contained in a 'Local Plan', that were written AFTER 2004, remain prevalent for 12 months (after which time I assume they will become defunct and everything will be based upon the NPPF).

'Local Plan' policies written before 2004 are not to be given due importance in decision making unless they are consistent with the NPPF.

And if I have translated that correctly, it seems to mean that all Local Planning Authorities have 12 months in which to have their Local Plan up and running and approved. Or so it seems?

http://www.communiti...pdf/2115939.pdf

[Andrewaz]

Hi all

This is a fascinating topic. Our situation is that we have applied for a barn and farm shop under PD, The process was started back in September last year and is still on going! Having been refused twice we are waiting for a certificate of lawful development. It was turned down because there is no dwelling associated with the holding! (I could go on for hours about this saga but will not bore you with it.) Even though we tick all the boxes for PD. In the mean time we have applied under PPS7 for a temporary dwelling, went to the parish council last week and got resounding support from them.
This leads on to my query about the new NPPF. If, and it is a big IF, we get granted 3 years temporary permission to develop and grow our business will this be revoked under the new framework or will it run its course and then what are we left with. Also how does the agricultural PD policy sit under the new framework?

[surreydodger]

Hi Andrew,

The NPPF document won't change current Permitted Development regulations.

How it will affect things is as to how they are considered when a decision is being made. Most of the development such as barns and hardstandings won't see much change as that is all laid down under the GPDO act (Part 6), The key phrase seems to be

'promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land based businesses'

but I don't think it will be as simple as it seems as there are other policies regarding the environment which might come into play.

[Cornish Gems]

What was wrong with having sales at the farm gate?