Appeal reference APP/F2605/W/18/3217086
Submitted to Planning Inspectorate via email 28.02.2019.
With reference to the planning appeal referred to above, Hoe and Worthing Parish Meeting have now considered a response to this matter and wish to indicate that there is no change to its original objections. These are included in the document submitted to the local planning authority (Breckland District Council) which is reproduced below for ease of reference.
We ask that our objections are taken into account when the appeal is considered and would be grateful if we could be informed of the decision in due course.
Yours sincerely
Trevor Wood
Chairman, Hoe and Worthing Parish Meeting
Planning application 3PL/2018/0041/UC, change of use for an agricultural building to C3 residential use: Woodland Farm, Holt Road, Hoe.
With reference to the planning matter referred to above, the parish of Hoe and Worthing has considered the correspondence submitted to the Local Planning Authority and requested that I outline a number of grounds for objection in response.
History of the site.
The owner of the site subject of this application was recently successful in obtaining consent to erect a new detached house. This followed a submission claiming that a former railway carriage situated among other buildings at this location had previously been used as a residence and this was supported by a statutory declaration from John Jones, who claimed to have been resident in the carriage as a child and to some extent by statements made by others who had lived in the area. In effect the new house was a replacement dwelling.
Local knowledge indicates that the site was a former gravel extraction site and the resultant pit, when the aggregate supply was exhausted, became the municipal waste disposal site for the surrounding area during the 1950s and 1960s. At some point late in the 1960s the local authority made other arrangements for landfill and the site was sold to a private owner. The declaration of John Jones indicated this transaction was made to his father, Clive Canham, who lived at the site until 1997 when he moved to Swanton Morley but retained ownership until his death in 2013, when John Jones’ mother inherited it. It was sold during recent years to the current owner Jonathan Stimpson.
During the years of Clive Canham’s ownership the 15 acre site he purchased was (according to John Jones) used variously for the storage and sale of scrap metals, the repair of machinery and until 1998 some 5 acres was given over to the growing of crops. This largely corresponds with local observation although it is generally stated that the period of growing crops was very limited, somewhat experimental, with very mediocre attempts made to grow a cereal crop and also potatoes. These attempts have been described locally as ‘no good’ and were fairly short-lived; the cause of the lack of success has been speculated as due to the owner’s inexperience, the nature of the soil or the ‘poisoning’ of it by pollution from the former landfill site. John Jones claimed that after 1998 5 acres was used for ‘farming grazing fields’; if this was intended to imply the area was used by Clive Canham for the grazing of animals it does not correspond with the recollection of any local resident. The primary uses of the site, as observed locally, were for those associated with scrap metal and repairs.
The testimony of John Jones indicates that after his father moved to Swanton Morley in 1997 he continued to visit the site ‘particularly sorting scrap metal items’ (he does not mention animal husbandry). The use for scrap continued after his father’s death and when ownership was conveyed to Jonathan Stimpson it was accompanied by ‘in excess of 50 tons of scrap metal and various machines and equipment left at the site’. Both local observation and the evidence of John Jones indicates there was no food crops grown on the five acres formerly used for that purpose but Jones did indicate in respect of anything ever grown that ‘All crops were used for our consumption’ i.e. his own, his father’s and his mother’s.
The railway carriage referred to here is still in existence at the site, along with several outbuildings that have clearly been brought from other locations and re-erected; they include the building subject of the current application. The statutory declaration of John Jones indicates these buildings have been on the site since 1980.
Main issues raised in the application
This is an application of change of use for an agricultural building to a dwelling (class C3) which is allowed for as permitted development in the provisions of Class Q, Town and Country Planning, General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015. An amendment to the order in 2018 allows for greater latitude in the size of agricultural buildings affected but that is not relevant to this matter.
The main issues that appear to arise are….
- Whether the site is an ‘established agricultural unit’.
- Whether it was used for that purpose on 20th March 2013.
- If it was in use for that purpose when it was last used.
- Whether it is capable of conversion to the extent it can function as a dwelling.
- Whether the building is an ‘agricultural building’
Our parish does not believe that any of these issues are satisfied by the evidence presented in this application or those that preceded it.
Use of the land
Class Q cannot be relied on by the applicant if ‘The site was not used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit.
- On 20th March 2013
- In the case of a building which was in use before that date but was not in use on that date, when it was last in use.
The evidence of John Jones referred to earlier clearly demonstrates that the use of the site after Clive Canham moved from the converted railway carriage in 1997 was related to dealing with his scrap metal business. That same evidence indicates that after Clive Canham’s move, the land formerly used for growing crops became grass. There is no evidence that the grass was ever used for any purpose but clear evidence from John Jones and local observation that what was grown previously was only grown for the consumption of his family.
Clive Canham died during 2013 following a protracted and debilitating illness and there is clearly no evidence presented that any form of agricultural activity had taken place at the time of his death or could have been taking place on 20th March 2013.
There is no evidence that this site has ever been used solely for an agricultural use or has formed part of an established agricultural unit.
Use of the building
The site subject of this application has been named ‘Woodland Farm’ despite it having historically been used principally for the collection and sale of scrap metal and mending machinery. It bears no resemblance to any accepted view of a ‘farm’ and the only growth of crops was for personal use and on an allotment scale that could reasonably be described as a ‘hobby’.
In the declaration of John Jones he refers to the building for conversion as an ‘agricultural barn’ although that bears no resemblance to any accepted view of a barn used in agriculture and the only uses he describes in his evidence is for the storage of logs and some of the machinery that abounded on the site. The reference to ‘agricultural barn’ persisted nevertheless into the ‘Legal Justification for a Certificate of Lawfulness’ paper submitted by Howes Percival Solicitors and not surprisingly was carried over to the certificate itself when granted by the Local Planning Authority. The term is now used in this application for a change of use without any justification ever having been presented that it has been at any point an ‘agricultural building’.
Part 3, Paragraph X of the General Permitted Development Order defines ‘agricultural building’ as ‘A building (excluding a dwelling house) used for agriculture and which is so used for the purpose of a trade or business’.
As stated it is clear from the statutory declaration of John Jones that the only ‘agricultural’ activity that ever took place on the site was for home consumption and the only trade or business was dealing in machine repairs and scrap metal. It is not therefore an agricultural building and the description ‘agricultural barn’ is without foundation.
Paragraph (i) of class Q appears to preclude conversion where extensive renovations beyond replacing doors, windows, utility supplies and drainage are necessary or where partial demolition may be necessary for the structure to function as a dwelling. It is inconceivable that the building, which has the appearance of many that started their lives on war time airfields with a military use could be converted without resorting to measures prevented by the Class Q provisions.
Precedents.
The application refers to two precedents where it is claimed the LPA granted consent for change of use. It is quite clear however that the two proposals referred to are very different, in that they are both part of an established agricultural unit used solely for agriculture and either comply with the class Q requirement to be used for that purpose on 20.03.2013 or were compliant when last used.
A much clearer parallel exists with a change of use application at ‘Mulberry Lodge Nursery’ in Manor Farm Lane, Hoe, less than half a mile from the application site: the reference number is 3PN/2016/0029/UC and it was refused. There is the benefit of an appeal (APP/F2605/W/16/3155972) where the appeal inspector found the main issues to be identical to those germane to the application at Woodland Farm: the appeal was refused.
Conclusion.
There is an existing certificate of lawfulness which permits the storage of a tractor and topper in respect of a structure on the site labelled for the sake of identification and consistency with other documents as ‘an agricultural barn’. This does not confer any confirmation that the structure is in fact either ‘agricultural’ or a ‘barn’ however. In respect of the site it is wholly inexplicable that no reference has been made in this application or the three that preceded it to its former use as the municipal landfill and the potential that has to pollute the whole area remains a cause for concern in Hoe.
The application does not demonstrate the site was used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit at any time or that it was ever used in connection with agriculture for a trade or business, indeed it does not give any indication it was ever used in connection with agriculture in any way
John Jones declares ‘The agricultural barn was used for the storage of a tractor and an agricultural grass topper. The internal area, which has a concrete floor, was also used to store tractor spares and seasoning wood logs’. On a site that quite clearly was used primarily for mending machinery and dealing in scrap metal there was no doubt similar storage taking place throughout much of the site.
In the case of Mulberry Lodge Nursery the building concerned was used for the storage of identical machines and there was an attempt to show they had been used in connection with an agricultural business occupying the whole site. Nevertheless the appeal was disallowed on the basis it did not meet the requirements of Class Q. Our view is that this appeal decision demonstrates quite clearly that this application also should be refused and we would ask that in deciding this matter the elements of the appeal and the other objections we have raised are taken into account.
Yours sincerely
Trevor Wood
Chairman, Hoe and Worthing Parish Meeting
