5 replies to this topic

[Cornish Gems]

The case below has the statement:-
"You claim that the circumstances of the holding at Little Slifehurst Wood justify a permanent dwelling, never mind a temporary one. However, I consider that your clients' case does not meet at least one of the criteria in paragraph I5 of Annex I for assessing proposals for permanent dwellings, namely, the third criterion relating to the economic viability of the farming enterprise. In this respect, the agricultural unit and activity have been established for more than three years and the profit and loss accounts for the year ending 31 May 1996 indicate a net profit which exceeded the minimum agricultural wage for that year. However, the accounts are for tax purposes only and they do not include any allowance for such items as Council Tax, veterinary treatment or unpaid labour. If such allowances are taken into account, the net profits do not exceed the minimum agricultural wage for any of the last 3 years. Indeed, they do not exceed this level for any of the years since the last appeal decision. In these circumstances, and as the accounts for the year ending 31 May 1997 indicate that the net profits for the last year do not meet the minimum agricultural wage, I am not convinced that the unit is currently financially sound."

Petter and Harris v SSE and Chichister DC

[che]

Think it is important to point out this Inspectorate Appeal Decision was overturned in favour of the applicant. Minimum Wage is exactly what it says on the tin you can not ask your boss for extra for the Council Tax. MW accepts you can survive on this level. It flags up a warning not to hide costs like vets bills and if you have non it might be worth entering them in your accounts as a zero value.
The judge also flagged up that certain cases might not meet the MW but still be viable.
It might be me but I saw more good in this case than bad. Shows that the Planning Inspectorate can be challenged.
Motto "Right is Might"

[che]

SUMMARY OF THIS CASE MAIM ISSUE VIABILITY INTO THE FUTURE

Petter & Harris -v- Secretary of State for the Environment (2000) 79 P&CR 214 is an example of a case where the Court of Appeal did identify a clear underlying purpose of the planning policy for agricultural dwellings. At page 223 Nourse LJ said “What is the object of that part of the policy document? Or as my Lord, Sedgley LJ, put it in argument, one has to look at what is the policy? As I have already sought to demonstrate, it is clear both from the predecessor of PPG 7 that was before the Court in 1992, and also from the current document, that the reason why financial viability and the long term prospects of the farming operation are taken into account is in order to seek to ensure that the residential development that is going to be permitted on the basis of the agricultural activity will indeed remain as a residential development, linked to an agricultural activity: that is to say, as indeed, paragraph I5 © of PPG 7 puts it, the agricultural activity concerned has a clear prospect of remaining financially sound and profitable. The simple words of the policy and of the policy document must therefore be interpreted with that overall intention in mind.



As is agreed on all sides, the policy is to stop bogus or over-optimistic applications and to ensure that the relevant agricultural activity is likely to continue. Therefore, in looking at the wording of the policy, it is necessary for the inspector to consider what is the root reason why he is looking at financial viability at all.”

[che]

ANOTHER SUMMARY

http://www.selfbuild...e-smallholdings

Under the pictures

[Cornish Gems]

The only thing that really interested us in thie case, was the mention of the agricultural minimum wage - it has now given us a definite target. Your advice re vets bills, etc is excellent - one has to make allowances for the fact that a lot of the people we are dealing with don't seem to have any common sense.

[pigman]

The only thing that really interested us in thie case, was the mention of the agricultural minimum wage - it has now given us a definite target. Your advice re vets bills, etc is excellent - one has to make allowances for the fact that a lot of the people we are dealing with don't seem to have any common sense.

Also remember your livestock - deadstock and feedstock will have a closing value and should be added to your income for both tax purposes and planning purposes