Re: NPPF and Agricultural Dwellings - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

I'm not sure we should throw the towel in yet. PPS7 remains the best evidence as to what is acceptable, so long as it is in conformity with the NPPF. The NPPF doesn't give any criteria, therefore it will be for each authority and community to think of what would be best in their area. The requirement for "rural" worker is the new test, so how will your community define rural worker? Is it still farmer or lumberjack, or will it include maintenance of a wind farm? or lock keeprs cottage on a restored canal? The 3 year permission i always found was a hinderance to pragmatism, Lets see what develops.

This would be clutching at straws as you say PPS7 has been removed so any annexes are also deleted, as Phillip advises going to be for each authority to define what is meant by an essential need for a rural worker. This may also impact on the validity and wording of any occupancy conditions, time will tell

Thanks for this. I just want to clarify that where there is guidance which is separate from the PPS, then that guidance is still 'in existence'. Anything like the Annex to PPS7 which is 'in the cover' of the PPS, falls with the PPS. If the NPPF does not say you cannot do something, then you still can. So, hindrance or not, if you wanted to set out a 3 year temporary permission, provided you can support that with local evidence, then you are still able to. You just can't use the Annex in PPS7 as your supporting reason.

As i said earlier... until PPS7 is replaced by something better i feel that you can still use its reasoning to support your decision. You will however have to also consider any other material consideration, as always, which may be contradictory. With the three year temp permission, you should also consider if the enterprise where to be sustained for three years you are accepting a permanent structure will be built, so if a permanent house is NOT acceptable in the landscape (or for any other demonstrable reason) you should not offer a temporary consent. I speak from having had a bad experiance of this (left me by a predecesor)

The "problem" the NPPF has caused varies from LPA to LPA, in Phill's case, his Ag worker's dwelling policy was not saved by the GOSW and as a result, is wholly reliant upon PPS7. Whereas other LPAs still have an Ag workers policy saved in their plans. I'm in the interesting position of having just submitted an Appeal today on this very issue and it will be very interesting for everyone to see how this one will be handled.

Planning lawyer Martin Goodall has written a blog piece on this issue which might be of interest: http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/

Surely by using the new wording as in the NPPF, 'essential' that an agricultural worker live on the land, it is easier and clearer to decide whether there is a need to allow a new development. Under PPS 7, decisions are clouded unfairly by requiring financial tests to be met. No other form of housing development is expected to meet that demand. When was the last time planning permission was granted for a new home on the basis that it could only be granted once the applicant proved they could afford it? The problem facing planners is probably more to do with when is 'essential' applicable rather than concerning one self as to how to apply the regs of old as in PPS 7. Is it essential that an agricultural dwelling is provided for a worker looking after 500 head of real free range poultry or 50,000 head in an intensive free range unit? I wish you good luck with that one :)

Surrey Dodger - that is the problem, how do you define essential? PPS7 provided a framework for how this could be qualified, together with a few additional bolt-ons about financial viability to prevent abuse of the system. Personally, I'm looking forward to being a test case on this one.

My understanding is that as PPS7 is gone you will not be able to rely on its reasoning to support your decision. If you have no policy applicable to agricultural workers dwellings than according to the NPPF the only policy basis for considering the development is the new NPPF, is this not one of the underlying points (good or bad) of the document.

Interesting comments thanks for the input. Without a saved local plan policy - it was assumed to be covered in PPS7 I think we are a little bit vulnerable as a rural authority. Let’s hope further guidance is issued to at least give a definition of a 'Rural Worker' and 'Essential'. We have quite a lot of equestrian developments as well as rural business - will they now qualify for a permanent dwellings? With have 3 cases pending and none passing all of the criteria’s in the annex A (financial and commensurate size of the dwelling) I may well have my own test case if I continue with a refusal

I was told today that at a recent Planning Officer's Society conference Stephen Quatermaine, the Government's chief planner, advised that although PPS7 has gone the Annex is still in place. Perhaps someone needs to write to DCLG and establish the situation.

Would Annexe A exist if PPS 7 had not been written? The annexe is only there to further enhance paragraph 10 of PPS 7. It would naturally follow then that if the PPS 7 document has been abandonded so has its annexe's. If it were the case that parts of any PPS or PPG were being retained then they would have been put in to the all superseding NPPF. Not following such rational would open the flood gates for all kinds of retentions which makes a bit of a mockery of updating the guidance. Nathan McLoughlin - For agricultural purposes, 'essential' is I suggest, primarily where the welfare of agricultural livestock will benefit from 24 hour presence. This can be as much as the daily general health of livestock (which will develop any kind of illness at anytime of the day or night,, not just between 7.30 and 5.00) as well as all of the obvious care required in rearing young. More consideration has to be given in affording the protection of livestock on a security basis. In the past this has been merely given lip service but with the cutting back of police forces, the rural countryside is devoid of any police presence, particularly overnight (the new trend is for thieves to shoot an animal in the field and remove the cacass). It would be constructive if planning decision makers were also more aware of the regulation under which the farming industry has to operate. Having to protect ones flocks and herds from many diverse issues (biosecurity, vermin, thieves, enclosures, weather, animal housing environmental systems, etc.) does make it an exceptional industry. In a factory, office or retail outlet, one turns the lights off at the end of the day and go home. Farming does not and can not operate like that. Even crop producers can have 24 hour a day issues that need onsite supervision, though their needs differ somewhat from livestock producers. So in deciding what 'essential' is, greater consideration and understanding must be given to the endurances a farm worker will endure as opposed to considering what some Nix pocket book may ascertain.

If it is to be consdiered remotely consistent with its broader localism agenda, the Act itself, and the NPPF, it seems to me that the Government will have deliberately intended that methodologies contained in the likes of PPS 7 Annexe A should not be relied up to determine applications. Indeed, it seems almost absurb to me to talk about any element of any PPGS/PPS as being an important material consideration when it's been dumped so deliberately - it is surely no more valid than trying to refer back to a development plan policy that wasn't saved. The message is: come up with a methodology that suits the circumstances, taking acount of local matters in particular. If it so happens that Annexe A provides the best methodology then it is a question of the methodlogy being given weight not Annex A - ie. not relying on the suitability or robustness of the metholdogy on the basis that it used to be national policy. It follows that it is open to any LPA to identify and adopt as SPD the methodology it sees fit to use in its area, including defining what 'local', 'rural' and 'essential' mean, amongst others. If the LPA needs to adopt a new Core Strategy policy first then so be it, but the message really should be that we've go to stop making decisions vicariously through defunct policies.

Bob Neill has already said that the supporting guidance for the now deleted policy contained much that was useful and may be revised and re-issued. It may well be that the government will decide we need guidance on what is local, rural or essential, but until then LPAs need to be robust but creative in how they deal with applications for rural dwellings based on functional need. Given the underlying need for planning to deliver sustainable solutions as set out in the NPPF, LPAs will need to develop a stance to reflect their local priorities in relation to remote rural dwellings. This stance will need to reflect what they consider to be sustainable. Para. 55 of the NPPF is vaguer than PPS 7 including Annexe A were, but that doesn't open the floodgates for unsubstantiated applications for rural dwellings. When interpreting guidance, the judgement in Woods, which was recognised in the Petter judgement, states that if an LPA "adopts and applies a meaning which it is capable as a matter of law of bearing, then it will not have gone wrong in law". The intent and purpose of the guidance must however be reasonably considered, and that is the main requirement arising from Petter. If LPAs clarify in policy and SPDs how they intend to interpret the NPPF (in this or any other respect) in order to deliver its reasonably interpreted objectives then they will have a defensible system for decision making. Demonstrations of financial viability, requiring s106 agreements tying dwellings to holdings and other controversial elements of functional housing policy may all come into the mix, providing they can be properly justified.

How can Annex A still be in place?

As per my previous post on 2 April, if the Annex is in the cover of the PPS, then it falls with the PPS. So, thanks for pointing this out Nathan, it isn't Annex A of PPS7, it's Annex E of PPG7 that is still extant.

Now that PPS7 and its Annex A have gone, that leaves an interesting transition issue. Where do those who are currently living in temporary homes on a 3-year planning permission and subject to a successful business plan at the end of Year-3 stand? Someone today can IMMEDIATELY submit an application for an 'isolated' house based on 'essential need' WITHOUT having to go through the now-dead PPS7 procedure of submitting a business plan, then living in a mobile home for 3 years and then having to prove business success at the end of the final year. I have a client half way through her 3 year Trial By Fire who now clearly feels disadvantaged by the recent changes.. I can suggest a variety of approaches to her - but before I do so, has anyone any comments or suggestions on this point? Many thanks.

For clarification: Richard Hathway, Principal Consultant should read: Richard Hathway, Principal Consultant, Private Sector Consultancy I have updated my LGA profile - but who knows when it when/if it will reach here!

The communities website lists Annex E of PPG7 as being retained post NPPF, see http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/general-content/planningandbuilding/planningpolicystatements/ Shelley Coffey, Planning Consultant, Rural Solutions

I was interested to see the discussion on the lack of detailed advice for agricultural matters (including accommodation for agricultural workers) post NPPF. This appears now true for a good number of other planning topics (as highlighted in the recent Planning Magazine http://www.planningresource.co.uk/news/1127440/Experts-call-NPPF-advice-gap-filled/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH ) . I am grateful to Shelly Coffey for the link to the CLG web page that confirms extant guidance. Included is Annex E to PPG7. I have not kept a copy of PPG7 following its replacement by PPS7 in 2009, and neither is that document available on CLG web site. However isn't Annex A of PPG7 concerned with agricultural and forestry PD rights (now somewhat out of date) rather than guidance in respect of viability/need for dwellings? In which case there does appear to be a policy/guidance vacuum after all (as per the original query). Can any one provide clarification here? Confused of Stratford-upon-Avon

Having Googled on this topic I came across two councils who have migrated the PPS7 Annex A text into their plans. I doubt that this approach will hold water long term. Others seem to have calmly adopted the NPPF but the essential need clause is still being applied, as required by the NPPF. Don't forget that the NPPF seems to be aiming for a more flexible and more liberal approach to planning. The overly prescriptive approach of PPS7 doesn't fit with with the new direction. The NPPF hasn';t been created - and the PPS documents deleted - just for all this to be ignored or worked around. Simply cloning obsolete legislation would seem to be acting against the wishes of central government. I personally would like to see: * A relaxed essential need test - 'full time' presence being modified to 'majority of time' * The financial test being omitted or relaxed - many farms rely on external business activities for cross-financing so why should new businesses be any different? * No more 'temporary buildings for three years' nonsense. You either build a decent sustainable house on Day One or you don't. * Increased use of Section 106 restrictions or 'unliftable' legal contracts to ensure that the land stays agricultural and doesn't become a garden or horse paddocks at a later date. This sort of approach could lead to more agricultural land being brought into production by smaller enterprises - without filling fields with mobile homes. We might end up with more homes built in the countryside - but at least they will be of decent quality and legally tied to the world of agriculture.

Richard Acknowledge your point, however, my interpretation of the NPPF is not simply to relax that aspect of the legislation but to allow Local Authorities to draw their own conclusions as to what mechanism works best in each individual circumstance. Ultimately, without any guidance on how to assess "essential need" that will have to be the case. Be interested to know how "majority of time" would be calculated, presumably there are no industry definitions. If a new enterprise relies on external or off-site activities to subsidise the farm business, surely this will lead to abuse of the system? The dwelling is there to support the enterprise. If the farm is not viable in itself, how can the dwelling be justified? Again, if you allow the build from day one, what assurances do you have that there is a business which would support a dwelling? How would you prevent a landowner setting up an enterprise which looks viable on paper and meets the functional need, only to fold it once the dwelling is completed, leaving a permanent dwelling (albiet vacant presuming compliance with a standard occupancy condition) with no business to support it. It might be frustrating testing the water, but better than scalding your foot. Interesting points nevertheless.

>> If a new enterprise relies on external or off-site activities to subsidise the farm business, surely this will lead to abuse of the system? I used to think that too ... until I saw a report entitled "The Implementation of National Planning Policy Guidance (PPG7) in Relation to the Diversification of Farm Businesses". This reveals: * "62% of farmers received income from sources outside agriculture," * "5% of full-time farms have on-farm diversification activities (including both agricultural and non-agricultural income), contributing on average £6,000 per farm, or 45% of farm income;" * "20% of full-time farms gain income earned off the farm by the farmer or spouse, contributing on average £11,500 per farm, or 78% of farm income." * "(These figures would be significantly higher if part-time farms were included)." These figures rang an alarm bell : PPS7 Annexe A requires a 100% successful business within three years, starting from scratch. Yet in the real world many/most farms seem to need some sort of additional funding. So essentially PPS7 Annex A is almost a surefire NO for applicants who take the three year route. Was the original wording carelessly defined by someone with no knowledge of the agricultural world? Or was the original wording deliberately set up to create an almost impossible barrier? Either way, PPS has gone, we now have a chance to put a FAIR system in place. You only have to look at the many - sometimes heartbreaking - PPS7 Annex A refusals and enforcements which have taken place over the past years to see how ordinary decent people who simply want to raise animals have been let down by the system. Sure , we need to stop the con artists who want to build executive homes in a field - but we have other legal means to control this sort of scheme. Also, maybe we should prevent the rather too rustic fraternity from starting 'bender' and yurt colonies etc. However the countryside certainly has space for small tidy, well-constructed agricultural dwellings/holdings ... even if one or more of the family has to work outside to help pay the bills. Surely the partner of many reading this post has to work in addition to the main income earner to ensure the mortgage and food bills are paid? Why should planning applicants be expected to be 'better' than that?

>> Be interested to know how "majority of time" would be calculated, presumably there are no industry definitions. Trite answer: At 8AM on the morning of Dec 25th are you: A: sitting in a warm house in your pyjamas unwrapping presents, possibly surrounded by over excited children? or B: Are you in the middle of a field in wellies feeding animals? IMore seriously: I would suggest that needing to be on-site 365-days a year, looking after stock, for several hours a day would suffice.

>> Again, if you allow the build from day one, what assurances do you have that there is a business which would support a dwelling? As noted above, as long as the business is actually operating as a true essentially full-time agricultural activity, who cares how it is financed? If the business folds, there will always be someone will will take it on. That's how the free market works. Periods of site 'emptiness' are acceptable - half our High Street shops are 'between tenants' so why should farms be any different? The key factor is set up a legal framework which totally blocks the executive home route.

Adam and Richard - have you seen the LGA's briefing note dated 20 April 2012 which states that Annex A of PPS 7 is still in place (see paragraph 24.1 on page 13)? http://www.planningofficers.org.uk/downloads/pdf/ComprehensiveBriefforNPPF__final__200412.pdf. (from http://www.planningofficers.org.uk/POS-Library/Others/Detailed-Briefing-on-the-National-Planning-Policy-Framework-_340.htm) We need confirmation from DLC whether Annex A of PPS 7 still remains or not.

Hi Ian, Err, those links don't work for me ... However I have been discussing with the DCLG various aspects of the aims of the now defunct PPS7 Annex A. Yesterday I received a detailed letter from the DCLG that includes the comment: "I can confirm that Annex A was cancelled along with the PPS. " There you go - can't be clearer than that.

Update: 1. The links do work if you delete the stray character at the end of each. 2. The Annex A deletion comment was a typo which was corrected at a later date. They meant Annex E of PPG7 which then became part of PPS7. As noted above, the PPS7 body plus its Annex A have gone.

We are attempting to establish new affordable (and Low Impact) smallholdings as part of a scheme for new entrants to ecological agriculture (www.ecologicalland.coop). Our planning officer recommended approval but said "Previously, it would have been considered to fail against the ‘functional need’ set out in PPS7. The test now is whether there is an ‘essential’ need for ‘rural workers’ to live at or near their place of work. Having said that, the information put forward by the applicant ... are considered to justify a dwelling on site for a temporary period of 5 years as it is ‘essential’ for the success of this project that the occupiers work and live on site. The ecological and low impact credentials of the project can be for a temporary dwelling on the basis that it would allow the pilot project to take place." Our applications came before the planning committee last month who voted to defer to give them time to read the business plans and Management Plan (the applications were submitted before PPS7 was repealed). However, Members did express doubts during that meeting about the need to live on site and whether it was possible for a smallholding to be viable. (We commissioned research into the viability of smallholding which can be downloaded from our website). We are due to have our applications discussed again on June 6th and we are at a loss as to what more to say. (Maybe there isn't any more to be said?) If the Committee vote to refuse the applications, what sort of discussion will we have at appeal if our officer believes there is essential but not functional need? Thoughts appreciated!

As the application has not been decided it now falls for consideration on the basis of the new guidance, so if the authority does not have an adopted plan with a specific policy for agriulcultural dwellings they are totally reliant on the NPPF. The NPPF make no reference that I can see to a function test as part of the assessment of essential need. On reading the info on your web site it would appear that part of the argument for on site location relates to the sustainable nature of the development and the use of de-centralised energy sources to support the plots. I would suggest if you have not already done so that you check the officer’s committee report that it relates s only to the new guidance I don’t see that you could provide much further information to the planners if they refuse it on the issue of the principle of essential need you may be best going straight to appeal. In addition the whole point of a temporary consent is to establish the viability of the development.

Thank you Martin, Yes indeed, part of the argument to be located on site is in order for residents to make use of renewables generated on-site, rainwater harvesting, compost toilets, etc. thereby reducing their ecological (including carbon) footprint. The officer only made that one reference to PPS7 and has otherwise only referred to the remaining parts of their Local Plan and the NPPF. Their Local Plan has basically the same policy as the NPPF for rural workers ('i.e. essential need with no reference to the tests within PPS7). So perhaps we will be one of the - what is sounding like a few - test cases that will establish what 'essential need' actually means.

Zoe: - where does a viability test appear in the NPPF? - where does a temporary probation period appear in the NPPF? PPS7 has gone so LPAs no longer have any such items in their planning regulations - unless they have cloned PPS7 into their plans, which might be a contentious approach in view of the fact that central government has just deleted this document. If you insist on continuing to use the now-defunct ideas of viability tests, temporary permissions etc you may simply muddy the waters and you stand the risk of causing a version of PPS7 to return ... which would be a disaster in view of the unfair and dated nature of that document. The lack of a probation period will of course entail building a fairly expensive permanent sustainable dwelling rather than a cheap mobile home. Swings and roundabouts I'm afraid. The only hard-and-fast rule should be that the dwelling and holding should be for an agricultural business and not ever convertible into an executive home by stealth. Perhaps a rewrite of your applications is called for, with a strong focus on the NPPF.? As for your comments re 'essential need', yes, you will need to work with the LPA to resolve this issue. Don't forget that the NPPF suggests that the LPAs need to be 'creative' and 'flexible' with applicants to make it easier to get to a 'yes' decision. See below: NPPF Minister's Forward: .. sustainable development is about positive growth – making economic, environmental and social progress for this and future generations. The planning system is about helping to make this happen. NPPF Minister's Forward: Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision. NPPF Minister's Forward: ... planning must not simply be about scrutiny. Planning must be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which we live our lives. NPPF Clause 8: The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions. NPPF Clause 10. Plans and decisions need to take local circumstances into account, so that they respond to the different opportunities for achieving sustainable development in different areas. NPPF Clause 15. Policies in Local Plans should follow the approach of the presumption in favour of sustainable development so that it is clear that development which is sustainable can be approved without delay. ... and lots more continuing this theme. The NPPF provides plenty of input for a re-working of your application ... and I suspect that you will tick almost every box, so try to resist any temptation (or external demand) to use the now outdated PPS7 ideas.

Thank you very much for your comments Richard. An associate of mine, Simon Fairlie, asked me to ask "Richard, you say the financial test is defunct (23 May) but that is only if local plans choose to abandon it. How do you propose to distinguish between a dwelling for an "agricultural business" and an "executive home" without some kind of financial test? Doesn't an "essential need" to live isolated in the countryside normally involve land management being a substantial part of one's livelihood? If you ditch Annex A wholesale you risk ( as they say) opening the floodgates for the tens of thousands of people trying to build a nice house in the countryside without any real need to be there. There are problems with Annex A , namely (a) that the definition of functional need is much too restrictive, referring only to the need to deal with emergencies; and (b) that the recommended agricultural tie is far too weak because it doesn't tie the dwelling to the land that justifies it, so you can flog one off separate from the other even before you've built the house. Problems connected with the financial test, were progressively alleviated, first of all when MAFF (who defined viability by a formula involving minimum agricultural wage and notional rent etc) were removed as statutory consultees, and then in PPS7 with the introduction of the acknowledgment in paragraph 8 that subsistence farming can be viable (largely as a result of Petter and Harris). As regards your comments about full time and part time (4 May), the fact that 62 per of farmers have another income doesn't mean they don't work full time. Most families I know who live and work on productive farms or smallholdings work at least 40 hours per week between them. The Annex A requirement is in my view pretty reasonable (though employing Standard Man Days or the figures given for time in Nix's handbook to assess a holding deriving its income from local direct sales is not reasonable). For permanent permission you need to be full time (ie 39 hours a week) and mainly employed on the land but you can have another source of income as long as it isn't your main one. For temporary permission you don't need to be full time and can be mainly employed elsewhere while you build up the enterprise and make it profitable — though the five year period proposed in the draft to the 1997 PPG, and subsequently altered to three, is a more appropriate time span for people on a bareland holding. All these financial requirements are reasonably achievable for anyone who is competent, and the temporary period is extremely helpful for anyone wishing to achieve them. It is also helpful for people who prefer to live in wooden shacks, yurts, benders and caravans (which you seem to have something against) or for people who can't afford bricks and mortar. Simon Fairlie"

As per Richard’s comments you need to forget about annex A and the test laid out as these no longer exist this does not mean open season for housing in the countryside especially if local authorities have a relevant policy. As Richard advisee the aim is for planner to stop simple relying on policy and take a more creative approach. I can only suggest you talk to the planners to see as Annexe A has gone on reaching an agreement as to what they consider the “essential” part of their policy now relates to.

Hi Zoe, In your specific case I expect that your plans will be perfectly OK with regard to the NPPF. As for business models, temporary residence etc that's for you to negotiate with your LPA . This transitional period will be tricky for everyone! More generally, the way I see it is: * FINANCIAL TESTS The financial test is now subsumed by the Economic attribute of the sustainability definition. This aspect is now broader as Sustainability covers more than a single holding : it includes the local community, the country - and ultimately the world. This means that we may start seeing rather complicated calculations in planning applications concerning overall Economic benefit. (FYI My firm is working on a software system to help with the analysis of the various Sustainability attributes so that any specific scheme can be given a 'Sustainability Metric' score) * EXECUTIVE HOMES The NPPF applies to Sustainable Development only. Any development which misses the Sustainability goals in any significant way will fail the NPPF tests. This could I suppose lead to many PassivHäuser or eco homes being built in the countryside - but I'm not convinced that this would be a disaster for any local community or the nation. The NPPF plus local plans however should be able to block the building of executive homes. * PPS7 PROBATIONARY PERIOD. This was a probationary period - it wasn't intended to give applicants three years of mortgage free living so that they could save money. * ALTERNATIVE HOUSING >>> "people who prefer to live in wooden shacks, yurts, benders and caravans (which you seem to have something against) Britain is a small country with an increasing population facing problems in energy supply, water supply and climate change. - we need to make the most of our agricultural land. We especially need to bring the smaller pieces of underused land back into food production. This requires planning and teamwork between the smallholder and local authorities, local communities, the food industry, central government etc. It also requires use of modern communications & computer technology in order to optimise food production, ideally with the minimum use of chemicals and fossil fuels. This leads me to expect future agricultural dwellings, however small, to be highly sustainable, fairly technological, and to be well integrated into their local community and also into the food supply chain. The cornerstone of the NPPF sustainability model, the Brundtland Report ("Our Common Future") covers this point well : it suggests that subsistence farming can be a threat to sustainability so an approach that they call Integrated Rural Development should be the way forward. In view of this I'm not sure that yurts, benders etc are appropriate as 'Agricultural Dwellings' as discussed in the NPPF and in local plans. Perhaps we need an alternative planning route to permit the construction of such dwellings for those who seek this alternative lifestyle? * FINANCEABILITY >> or for people who can't afford bricks and mortar." Is having insufficient funds a justification for building sub-standard homes? HOUSES IN THE COUNTRYSIDE >>> you risk ( as they say) opening the floodgates for the tens of thousands of people trying to build a nice house in the countryside without any real need to be there. What's wrong with wanting a nice house? What's wrong with wanting to live in the countryside? As long as the nature of the countryside and agricultural production are not adversely affected, why should we worry where people live? There is this very strong thread though most planning documents which suggest that it is a BAD THING to build houses in the countryside. The more I work on planning issues the more I wonder about this. We have a lot of countryside with plenty of space for more houses - despite what the Daily Telegraph says there is no risk of concreting over England! I now have a dark suspicion that a good deal of the resistance against rural development is driven by well-off, highly literate, middle class rural dwellers who don't want their rural dream disturbed by incomers - or by noisy & smelly farming activities. If the LPAs replaced their usual 'no house in the countryside' rule with something rather more creative we could see a resurgence in rural communities, without damaging the nature of rural England in the process.

Does anyone know: a) if a study was ever prepared which looks at applications for agricultural workers' dwellings (under PPS7 and/or PPG7), analysing reasons given to support the case for functional need and where these were upheld or refuted by either LPAs or the Planning Inspectorate b) why the process of first applying for temporary permission for a rural worker's dwelling was not taken forward into the NPPF (arguably to establish essential need); and c) now that there is no option to apply for temporary permission in the NPPF whether this implies all applications have to be for rural businesses with an existing essential need or whether the policy writers intended for PROPOSED rural businesses to also apply for a permanent permission THANK YOU!

Exmoor National Park Authority has just adopted Annex A of PPS 7 as guidance to assist with the determination of applications for rural workers dwellings. How can they do that? What is the point of clinging on to out of date and superseded guidance. This discussion seems to be centering on agricultural workers dwellings, although someone asked earlier 'what is a rural worker'. Surely the definition is wider than that. Any thoughts?

>> Exmoor National Park Authority has just adopted Annex A of PPS 7 as guidance to assist with the determination of applications for rural workers dwellings. How can they do that? What is the point of clinging on to out of date and superseded guidance. Most LPAs are accepting the NPPF in a forward looking manner ... but a handful seem to be regarding it as a hindrance. PPS7 Annex A orginates at a time of peak farm dversification and so seems specifically designed to prevent farmers diversifying into housing. The PPS7 Annex A three year temporary mobile home requirement encourages non-sustainable practices. The financial target clauses are overly burdensome. The three year temporary time window is unfair nonsense which has few parallels in any other aspects of life. To my mind PPS7 is a thoroughly distasteful piece of work which seems deliberately designed to block new rural housing - unless you are rich of course. By far the worst aspect of PPS7 is the way it creates ' planning supplicants' rather than 'planning applicants'. LPAs should consign PPS7 to the dustbin of history and seek to replace it with either nothing or maybe with a plain, simple & fair protocol which reflects England/Britain in the 21st century.

Presumably someone who has run her smallholding through five temporary consents over fifteen years with no outside income could expect not to have to be put through the further hoop jumping of the functional and financial test? Her business is certainly sustainable and obviously she has survived financially. What possible legal justification could there be for trying to prove these two points under the new NPPF, whether or not her LPA want to retain the PPS7 format or not ?

Firstly in response to Zoe's comments on 9th June - the requirement for a temporary dwelling hasn't passed into the NPPF, but I can see no reason why you can't apply for one if you wish to. Getting an enterprise going without the cost of funding a permanent dwelling has much to commend it. You could apply for consent for longer than 3 years if you thought it prudent. Secondly, the NPPF cut about 1000 pages of guidance down to around 50. That does not mean the other 950 were all rubbish. The NPPF refers to "essential need" - what it doesn't do any more is prescribe how LPAs should determine that. Exmoor N P reasoned that 1) their adopted policy H8 was NPPF compatible in its aims, 2) it was written and adopted with the expectation that applications for dwellings under it would be assessed against Annexe A criteria, 3) the most appropriate guidance in assessing whether an application demonstrates "essential need" remains that in Annexe A, at least until H8 is replaced in their new Local Plan - a process that will involve appropriate public consultation. Annexe A is no longer mandatory - that doesn't mean that elements of its content are not still appropriate when assessing "essential need". Localism means individual LPAs will decide on what needs they regard as essential, rather than being told by national government. Some of them may well decide that some of the Annexe A tests help them in that decision

PPS7 and its Annex A have been deleted - so they are "no longer mandatory"? Does that mean that slavery or the death sentence are "no longer mandatory"? Exmoor (& a handful of other LPAs) are keen to use deleted regulations as if the deletion never happened. Taunton Deane takes it even further - they are trying to rewrite the NPPF by creating a customised version of the NPPF Model statement. I assume that all the effort that went into creating the NPPF was based on sound - and presumably very important - national considerations. It's sad to see firstly The Daily Telegraph & friends and then some LPAs trying to overturn or workaround a policy created by a democratically elected government.

The short version of this post is "I agree with Graham". At one of our recent NPPF events a question from the floor prompted a discussion on this very topic between PINS and a barrister. What I understood them to be saying was ... Councils still need to reach judgements on things (eg how essential is this need ?) Where there already exist processes for arriving at a judgement, councils may decide still to use them This shouldn't be an unthinking, default position. Councils should think through the issues relevant to them and use (or in this case recycle) methods for good planning reasons. This isn't worth all the heat it seems to be generating. It is a natural consequence of many of the old national policy documents containing a mixture of policy and guidance. Yes, the policy has been replaced. But some of the guidance continues to represent a sensible method for arriving at decisions.

>> But some of the guidance continues to represent a sensible method for arriving at decisions. I agree entirely. It's just that PPS7 is outdated so a revised approach is required. Simply cutting-and-pasting the old ideas wholesale, as some LPAs have done, without taking into account the NPPF or the different world that we now face, is a short-cut too far. Reusing old rules/guidelines, presumably to save time & budget (or maybe to show defiance to central government?) , will create inappropriate plans and could unfairly disadvantage planning applicants.

I fully agree with Richard H that the wholesale regurgitating of Annexe A conditions to meet the 'essential' definition as laid out under section 55 of the NPPF is wrong. Agriculture is a constantly changing industry (as is any other) but the planning restrictions have altered little. If one part of the game is changing and the other is not, then it is obvious to everyone involved within the process that everybody suffers. Agriculture is moving in two distinct directions right now and will likely do so for the foreseeable future. One movement is toward the 'supersize' farm where everything is done on mass and profitability relies on bulk and little regard to the quality or welfare. If you are happy with produce which is cheap but unsustainable, minimum quality and where livestock welfare doesn't bother you then that is your perogative and such farming methods will undoubtedly prosper. Dwellings on such farms are generally easy to show an essential need for and LPA would have little problem in granting them. The other side of farming is the complete opposite where the unit is small, typically under 20 hectares though can be upto 100. On these units, the reliance on prosperity fall to a more intensive care in what is being bred or grown. Livestock is of a more traditional nature, welfare is high priority and management is far mire hands on than automated. The economics of such small farms work not on bulk but creating better quality,,, both the produce and care of livestock. Now is as good a time in planning history as any we have had for several decades where every planning officer and LPA should take the opportunity to forget Annexe A and come up with planning measures that support the agricultural industry and dwellings where required. Afterall, do any of you reading this enjoy crap food? If you do, then revert to Annexe A :) I like Richard H's earlier idea about reducing the financial test to a point where a second income from say a partner living within an agricultural dwelling could make a contribution to the dwelling. The unit could still reasonably be expected to provide 65% of the financial test instead of 100% as it was in the old days. More support for the use of mobile homes sited permanently. The idea of the ubiquitos tin clad, cold mobile home is outdated. They can now appear as anything from a modern looking bungalow to a wooden boarded barn. The beauty of supporting such is that if the farm unit becomes unviable for whatever reason, it is a simple and affordable procedure to return the land to its previous standing. The home is saleable so there is not the loss incurred as if it were a brickbuilt home that has to be demolished. By allowing permanent mobile home siting also may reduce the need for a three year temporary, so long as agricultural conditions are being maintained from the outset. It also disuades those who would be looking to make a quick buck by building a dwelling within the countryside, even if it has an AOC upon it. The idea of using a house within the locality has always been just plain daft. That guideline was obviously suggested by someone who has no idea of farming and implemented by those who equally have no experience of what it is like running livestock and in some cases, crops. Greater emphasis must be placed upon animal welfare. The Animal Welfare Act should be better recognised as well as regulations and recommendations set out by DEFRA, RSPCA, etc. And finally, as per NPPF, a more supportive approach from LPA's towards building agricultural developments. It still seems many people are facing an uphill struggle in face of LPA's attitiude which is to 'protect' the visual amentiy of the countryside. All that does is preserve the view for the tourist and not support the ultimately more important food industry. I'd rather see the countryside busy with barns. etc. than face the prospect of starving or having to pay exhorbitant food prices for imported food, which is set to rise as the cost of transport continues to rocket.

We are in the process of applying for permission in an old badly restored quarry which has been returned to us. We are applying for greenhouses, barn, office and crop processing room (mobile home size) all of which the planners appear to have no objection to. The style of growing we will be doing has been proven to require 24 hour care and is proven to be highly profitable and extremely sustainable- especially as we plan on using site harvested water, site coppiced fuels for heating and renewable electric. Our project also includes planting an orchard, native specie hedgerows and topsoil restoration. We have support from more than one conservation charity and all local people presented to so far have swooned over the plan! We are a very small limited company and Health & Safety has policies with regards to Lone Workers in relation to heights, electric and water (all of which would be involved in an emergency which would require fixing within minutes or livestock would be at risk) thus we need three (mobile) homes on site to ensure there will never be people working alone and the HSE shuts us down (this is the advice we have received from the foremost employment law and health & safety company in the country)! The planner has not contradicted this as yet. He is saying we need to provide financial evidence that our growing method is viable (which we offered previously and they turned down) and we have again offered this to them. He is saying that this financial info is required because the homes would be isolated in the countryside. This despite the fact that we have many 'protected buildings'- houses (large developments on two sides) plus a cafe, large pub, cement plant, active quarry, light industrial site, main A road, planned bypass to this A road and rail line all within 400m on all sides of us. It is for this 400m reason that some of the farm buildings need permission as they will house 'livestock'. By the way, the reason we need houses on site and not use ones near by is because no way can a farmworker afford the houses nearby and any further away would not be close enough to respond. How can we be so close as to need to apply for permission to house livestock but still be isolated in the countryside- (sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it)? Is there either a planning or legal definition of isolated or has this been tested at appeal to get a definition? I also thought that as we have proved that the need to be on site is 'essential' even if we accept we are isolated then that fulfils the NPPF. Surely requiring further conditions goes against the grain of the NPPF requirements that have been set? One more thing. The adopted local plan ran out over ten years ago but was 'saved' by the Secretary of State about 5 years ago- would it still be valid bearing in mind that full weight may be given to current plans for up to 12 months assuming no conflict with the NPPF. It states that new agricultural workers dwellings will be required to fulfill the financial test of PPG7. This is odd in that the Local Plan is applying this to ALL ag workers dwellings not just those isolated in the countryside! Also, the proposed plan makes no mention of isolated but uses the words 'open countryside' which would also be in conflict with the NPPF and still requires a financial test which is also more restrictive than the 'essential' requirement of the NPPF. On top of this it has been suggested that we have to prove the business is viable by running it without someone on site to prove we need someone on site!

Re The NPPF definition of isolated: I have been in discussions with Central Govt on this. After a few weeks they came back to me saying that isolated is whatever the local planning authority define it as. Re: 'Open countryside' - this is simply any place outside the official development boundaries. It does NOT necessarily mean in the middle of a field - it can mean in the middle of a housing estate. I must say that I find this use of the phrase 'open countryside' rather naughty - to a casual reader it can give undue weight to the arguments put forward by a LPA. in fact many planning documents also use the phrase 'open countryside' in the publicly understood sense ... the 'novel' usage only kicks in when you apply for planning permission. Re: Mobile homes: hmmm .... unless they are super top quality and thus expensive how will they meet the 'sustainability' aspects of the NPPF? Why aren't you going for 'real' houses? (PPS7 has gone so the three year mobile home trial option has gone too) Re: Financial tests: With the deletion of PPS7 financial tests went away - but some councils are trying to reintroduce them. Expect test cases ... To some extent I can understand the planning authorities position : if in say five years time three valuable executive homes end up on that site then there will be a huge fuss! I don't know if you are in a 'posh' area but if so you might also be a target of local middle class people who have a lot of local influence. They won't want their house values threatened or their views spoiled - or anyone managing to build a home in the country for less than they paid. At the end of the day if the local planners and local councillors find your proposals fit their needs and goals then you have a good chance. If however your planned operation seems dodgy, shaky, ill advised or simply incompatible with the local 'zeitgeist' then life could be tricky. A final word of advice: don't bother getting all upset or worked up about the vagaries of the planning system. You'll only damage yourself. You certainly won't affect the planners - they have immense resources and they have seen proposals come and go over the years, whilst this is your first effort with a huge learning curve and probably little in the way of resources. Also, don't let it get personal. The planners and councillors are simply doing their jobs - they don't hate you or want you to fail. With a bit of luck there might be a middle way which satisfies all parties.

Mobile homes have been chosen because they have very low embedded carbon, minimal impact upon the site at build time and any other time, can be purchased second hand (all of which is sutainable) and can be easily further insulated (I speak as a member of a family who has been involved in mobile homes for over 30 years). On top of this the site cannot support the high density devlopment of executive homes due to the restoration methods. Light weight development only is suitable for this site hence mobile products which are very light and low impact. Regarding opposition- so far we have had only positive comments apart from the planning dept itself and that is with regard to the homes. The problem I think they are having is that this is a system that is new to this country and their ag consultant will know nothing about it and they have no previous decison to work from as a template. Oh well, we shall see how it goes! Thanks.

There has been a interesting appeal case where the Inspector had to look at the relationship between PPS7 and the NPPF (2171928 and 2172069) and basically concluded that although PPS7 has gone, it was clearly understood and would therefore be a good starting point, and interestingly, if you could show a business was not financially sustainable, even though this was not mentioned specifically in the NPPF, it was still a consideration. My view is that with the sustainability thread running through the NPPF, functional and financial sustainability are still key aspects.

We are local to the area and have been living on and running a small hill farm for the last four and a half years while trying to get temporary planning permission for three years in a mobile home under PPS7 Annexe A, retrospectively. We only fall short in the financial test. We have 34 alpacas and 340 free range hens for eggs. The alpaca side of the business has not done too well, but the free range eggs are doing very well and we supply a lot of local businesses with our produce and are making a tidy profit from that. Enough to pay our own way and keep the farm running well. We are trying to get planning permission on our farm for an underground, level 6, zero carbon agriculturally tied farmhouse. We own a house in our home town 12 miles away, which we will sell to fund the housebuild when we get permission. Since NPPF came into force, we have an upcoming planning appeal , our LPA wants us to prove we can build the house with profits from our farm, rather than from the sale of our house. This is the first time we have heard this being used. Surely, if you can fund the build with money from a house sale, why should we have to dig into our farm profits and probably have to get a mortgage as well to help. Also, our LPA's expected income from our small farm has risen with each new application from approx £13,000 p.a. to the most recent demand of £18,000. Can this be right for a small hill farm. Having spoken to other fully established local farmers who support our application, they thought we were joking when we mentioned this price. Their view is that even they are struggling to make any profit close to this figure. It almost seems as if our LPA is setting the bar way to high on purpose to prevent us from succeeding. We thought annexe A had been removed permanently. We have the majority of local support (with hundreds of support petition signatures and many support letters, but sadly have a small group of wealthy, middle class incomers who do not want us here. I don't think we fit in with their dinner set!! The questions being under the new NPPF rules. Can our local council set their own financial test rules when the financial test has been removed. Can they demand such a high profit margin from a small farm?? and can they demand that our proposed farmhouse be built just using farm profits and not from the money of our house sale??

>> our LPA wants us to prove we can build the house with profits from our farm, rather than from the sale of our house. I have seen zillions of similar applications and associated financial tests, but I have never heard of that variant before! I would have expected that "viability tests" relate to the long term annual business, not the cost of a house. Additionally I feel that LPAs can be over stringent with such financial tests - I have had several detailed discussions with the planning authorities in London on this topic. Anyway, as you have an Appeal scheduled, you'll have to rely on the Inspector ... there's nothing you can do in the meantime. (I trust that you designed & wrote your application with the local authority AND a possible Appeal in mind.) Finally, to be frank we can't see the full story here - there might be a contentious 'history or other relevant factors. As a result it may be that the LPA staff quite honestly believe that your application is inappropriate and so are using whatever tools they have available to 'manage' the situation.

>>Finally, to be frank we can't see the full story here - there might be a contentious 'history or other relevant factors. As a result it may be that the LPA staff quite honestly believe that your application is inappropriate and so are using whatever tools they have available to 'manage' the situation. The site we wish to buld on is brownfield as it is the exact location of the old farmhouse and farm buildings that used to stand there (there is plenty of stones, bricks and slate tiles from the farm on site, and we have an old aerial photos of the buildings). Although we have tried many times, our council has never granted us a three year temporary period, even though the councils planning officer recommended us for approval twice, the councillors have always ignored his advice. Sadly, that planning officer is now retired. We have had three appeals, although we had to withdraw from the second as our LPA added a very weight pile of new information at the last minute and our planning advisor didn't have enough time to study the evidence properly to give a decent response. At the first appeal (an inquiry), the inspector agreed with us on every test. But, he said that he had to refuse us on the financial test as we had failed to show on paper (even though we had stated all the facts at the meeting) that we had enough money to run the farm while the business was growing, and that we had the full ownership of our house without a mortgage. In his summing up he listed these points to be rectifyed for our next council meeting. We did this, and improved our business plan which the council had ACCORUS a local agricultural consultancy look over. ACCORUS approved our business plan. We also showed the council proof of our full house ownership and its value, and our financial viability to fund the farm. The councillors turned us down anyway as they said they did not understand what ACCORUS had said. Plus the ususal gubbins they always use about mobiles being eyesores and that we were in open countryside near a National Park (we are about two miles away from it as the crow flies, and facing away from it). The second appeal as I stated we had to withdraw from. The next LPA meeting was highly suspect. They turned us down again on the same points as before, and we were informed after the meeting by a now retired planning councillor who was backing us at this meeting, that all of the planning council were taken into another room just before the planning meeting and told by one of the planning councillors who seems to have a large amount of power and influence over the planning commitee what questions the councillors should ask and how they should vote!!! This is surely highly illegal. We are trying to convince the retired councillor who told us this, to write this down so that we can use this as evidence of bias and possible corruption in our LPA. This same council approves of kncoking down listed buildings for personal swimming pools for the larger ex-farmhouses in the area (not owned by a farmer), large personal equestrian rings for the rich horsey set, and more recently the knocking down of a small famers cottage by a property developer on five acres of farmland that is now a five acre posh garden and large £1,750,000 eco house that is 7000 sq feet in size, that has been sitting there unsold for the last two years!! Lets face it, no local rural worker can afford any of these. It seems the only way to suceed in getting planning with our council is to be an incomer and extremely wealthy. Our third appeal (another inquiry) was also highly suspect and I am thinking of writing to the planning inspectorate to complain about it, even though I cannot afford to go to high court about it. The only thing that was up for discussion was the financial test. The council having agreed previously that the other tests had been met (except the visual amenity test). The inspector at this meeting turned us down on the financial test, and the, even though it was not up for discussion, the functional test as well. On the site visit he spent the whole time with an objector mostly out of hearing whilst walking the site. When his refusal came in, there was little mention of our evidence by our professional team, and instead, used evidence provided by objectors (who like google a lot) who are wealthy middle class incomers as the basis for his argument, rather than the evidence provided by our professionals. His decision came just two working days after the meeting!!!!!!!! Our first appeal inspector took three weeks to reach his decision. If I were the suspicious sort, I would almost think he had made up his mind at the start rather than giving full and proper consideration to the huge amount of information provided. We then came to the conclusion that our LPA would never give us any three year temporary permission, no matter how good our application was, and so changed tactic from three year temporary to going straight for the farmhouse, with the new NPPF.

Sorry for spelling errors in last post!!!

>>The inspector at this meeting turned us down on the financial test, and the, even though it was not up for discussion, the functional test as well. On the site visit he spent the whole time with an objector mostly out of hearing whilst walking the site. What I meant to say was, The inspector at this meeting turned us down on the financial test, and the functional test,, even though it was not up for discussion, the functional test as well. On the site visit he spent the whole time with an objector mostly out of hearing whilst walking the site. Sorry for the glaring grammatical errors.

Its been a very long day!!!

Its been a very long day!!!

Sheesh ... forget the planning aspects ... this now seems to be a case of an irretrievably defunct relationship. Maybe you once had a viable case which could have been fine tuned through friendly negotiations .. but that was before before all those failed applications, appeals and disagreements. Do you still REALLY expect this to work out well, for either side?

We are almost a year in working with the NPPF. Does anyone know of any appeal decisions for agricultural dwellings under the new framework.? (other than the two already listed in this thread)

Appeal Decision APP/N3020/A/12/2169929. Appeal dismissed. (http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2169929&coid=2168896)

thanks Denise

The consultation period on Lord Taylor's recent report concerning Planning Guidance is coming to an end this week. See: http://planningguidance.readandcomment.com/ I have made a fairly large submission on the topic of new guidance on agricultural dwellings which might be needed to replace the now deleted PPS7 Annex A. If interested, you can find my document at: http://nppfconsulting.com//taylor_guidance_comment_hathway_pps7_annex_a.pdf

Just a further take on this issue. Application for second dwelling on established farm. Applicant is son of original farmowner, who lives in house at one end of holding but there is no agricuultural tie of dwelling to farm. In addition father is now in 70s has had a major stroke and a hip replacement and is essentially physically and mentally retired. Business is expanding under applicant with stables and fisheries as well as increased land and numbers of cattle. Applicant (son) lives in nearby village and has young family (3 kids - 2 under school age) but has to be at farm 7 days a week atc. Financial test met, functional test ? LPA saying no need because dad is still there and can alert son if problems arise.......

Being Devil's Advocate here: The usual rural solution in such a case is a 'house swap' ...

I thought the 1995 Keen v Sec of State case ruled that it was unreasonable to force someone to give up, or amend their property to accommodate a worker if the two tests on need had been met in principle? Has there been something since then?