Alternate name for "agricultural dwelling"? - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Sorry - I'm not a literary guru but I see what you mean. However, the proposal is what it is - and it will trigger the LPA's usual assessment procedure whatever you call it (I'm assuming the site is in a location where a new dwelling would not normally be permitted but please correct me if otherwise). You suggest this is a "purpose designed agricultural dwelling" so why not call it that? An "essential farmworker's cottage/dwelling/house" might be an appropriate alternative description. I've used the term "essential" to reflect paragraph 55 of the NPPF which you have also referred to. As I see it, if it's in the C3 Use Class then it's a dwelling. If the main function is to house an essential agricultural worker then its an essential agricultural worker's dwelling. Simples! Another thought though - you say this is for a small home supporting an agricultural business so presumably, it will be used to house a person(s) engaged in agriculture? The statutory definition of agriculture includes several other activities (including forestry) and the "standard" occupancy condition permits occupation by people engaged in those activities. If you over-specify ("cuddlefy"?) your definition tjust o engage paragraph 55 of NPPF you might find the LPA restricting occupancy to a narrower group of people that more closely matches your description. However you describe this "dwelling" I don't think it will change the way the LPA assesses the planning application (but i'm happy to be proved wrong .........)

>> As I see it, if it's in the C3 Use Class then it's a dwelling. If the main function is to house an essential agricultural worker then its an essential agricultural worker's dwelling. Simples! The application could be for a red brick standard dwelling - which would face a good chance of approval. However it would be more useful if the dwelling could also support agricultural operations, so this would affect the design decisions to some degree. The house would be a hybrid : it would support residents who work away from the land and at least one resident working on the land. The house would however NOT be subject to NPPF Clause 55, hence the search for a more 'friendly' name. >> I'm assuming the site is in a location where a new dwelling would not normally be permitted but please correct me if otherwise The location will arguably NOT be 'isolated' in NPPF terms. The local plan is out-of-date without adequate housing allocation so the LPA's more restrictive 'open countryside' restriction will/should be overridden by the NPPF version. Clearly if it is determined that the location IS 'isolated' then the naming is irrelevant.

Hi Richard - sorry, I saw your reference to NPPF para 55 and agriculture and answered accordingly. I suspect I'm overlooking something obvious here but here goes again .......... So what you are proposing is a new dwelling that doesn't need to rely on the special support of paragraph 55 of the NPPF and the penultimate paragraph of your reply gives the impression that you feel pretty confident that the "dwelling" part of your proposal shouldn't encounter any problems getting permission. However, it would be "useful" if the dwelling could support agricultural operations. Can you be more specific about that? For example, do you really mean "operations" or "uses"? What agricultural operations would take place and would they be taking place at the dwelling itself or elsewhere (you mention "the land"? Are the agricultural operations already taking place or will they be started in association with the new dwelling? Also, would the new dwelling (and any land with it - eg the land to be worked by at least one of the residents) genuinely comprise an agricultural unit and be used for the purposes of agriculture? You say it's a hybrid but (and this is where I might be missing the point ....) all I can see from your description is a dwelling being occupied for residential purposes (but possibly having the useful additional function of supporting some unspecified agricultural operations which might not even constitute development in their own right). Apologies if I seem to be missing the point - it's been a long week ......

Hi Andy, The dwelling will adjacent to the road entrance of a 10 acre smallholding, and so would be part of a small settlement, as infill.. Income will be received by one applicant working off-site and the other working on the smallholding. The house ideally should have an office, 'mud room', washroom with external door etc to make life easier for the person working the land. These changes will obviously be reflected in the drawings etc of the application. So the house would be 'multi-purpose' - although an 'ordinary' house would be OK too, although much more inconvenient. Obviously the 'agricultural dwelling' saga is liable to start if someone gets it into their heads that PPS7 should be dusted off .... hence the idea of a more suitable name. It would be daft to have to build a less sustainable, less useful 'ordinary' house just to avoid an unwarranted planning witch-hunt. And yes, the land WOULD be an real agricultural unit - not just a 10-acre garden or horse paddock. (The land currently has several commercial free-range chicken sheds, ducks, goats, sheep and a commercial apple orchard. A willow biofuel stand is being planted later in the year. Not a horse or alpaca in sight!)